Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Latest java-buildpack version doesn't work with IBM JRE. #955

Closed
kevin-ortega opened this issue Jun 29, 2022 · 3 comments · Fixed by #958
Closed

Latest java-buildpack version doesn't work with IBM JRE. #955

kevin-ortega opened this issue Jun 29, 2022 · 3 comments · Fixed by #958

Comments

@kevin-ortega
Copy link

kevin-ortega commented Jun 29, 2022

There seems to be a problem introduced in the latest java-buildpack, v4.49, using the IBM JRE:

   -----> Java Buildpack v4.49 | git@github.com:cloudfoundry/java-buildpack.git#5d5900c0
   -----> Downloading Ibm JRE 1.8.0_sr7fp11 from https://public.dhe.ibm.com/ibmdl/export/pub/systems/cloud/runtimes/java/8.0.7.11/linux/x86_64/ibm-java-jre-8.0-7.11-x86_64-archive.bin (8.9s)
   [Buildpack]                      ERROR Finalize failed with exception #<NameError: uninitialized constant JavaBuildpack::Jre::IbmJreInitializer::Tempfile>
   uninitialized constant JavaBuildpack::Jre::IbmJreInitializer::Tempfile
   Failed to compile droplet: Failed to run finalize script: exit status 1
   Installing Ibm JRE to .java-buildpack/ibm_jre Exit status 223

I don't see the problem using the previous version, v4.48.3:

 -----> Java Buildpack v4.48.3 | https://github.com/cloudfoundry/java-buildpack#97237cd
 -----> Downloading Ibm JRE 1.8.0_sr7fp11 from https://public.dhe.ibm.com/ibmdl/export/pub/systems/cloud/runtimes/java/8.0.7.11/linux/x86_64/ibm-java-jre-8.0-7.11-x86_64-archive.bin (1m 6s)
   Installing Ibm JRE to .java-buildpack/ibm_jre (22.9s)
 -----> Downloading Jvmkill Agent 1.0.0 from https://github.com/ibmruntimes/jvmkill/raw/jvmkill-ibmagent/libjvmkill.so (0.6s)
@dmikusa
Copy link
Contributor

dmikusa commented Jul 22, 2022

Looks like this was missing a 'require'. I'm not totally sure how that happened since the code has largely not changed in years. At any rate, adding the 'require' seems to have fixed the issue in my test. Please let me know if you still see any issues.

@kevin-ortega
Copy link
Author

Works for me now. Thanks Daniel!

@dmikusa
Copy link
Contributor

dmikusa commented Jul 22, 2022

Fantastic, thanks for confirming!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants