GNOME Bugzilla – Bug 437065
Crash when deleting a file from
Last modified: 2009-03-18 12:14:08 UTC
From: <> To: submit@bugs.gnome.org X-Mailer: bug-buddy 2.14.0 Subject: Crash when deleting a file from "Trash" Distribution: Debian 4.0 Package: nautilus Severity: Normal Version: GNOME2.14.3 2.14.3 Gnome-Distributor: Debian Synopsis: Crash when deleting a file from "Trash" Bugzilla-Product: nautilus Bugzilla-Component: general Bugzilla-Version: 2.14.3 BugBuddy-GnomeVersion: 2.0 (2.14.1) Description: Description of the crash: Nautilus crashes if an attempt is made to "Empty Trash", or delete any single file within, if a file is selected in the "Trash" window. Steps to reproduce the crash: 1. Place a file in "Trash". 2. Open "Trash". 3. In the "Trash" window, select a file. 4. Delete the file, using any of the methods below: * Press the "Delete" or "Shift-Delete" key. * Right-click the file and choose "Delete from Trash". * Choose "File/Empty Trash". * Right-click the "Trash" icon and choose "Empty Trash". 5. In the confirmation dialog, choose "Delete". 6. Nautilus will crash, but the file is still deleted. Expected Results: The file is deleted without Nautilus crashing. How often does this happen? First time. Additional Information: - Sometimes, Nautilus displays two emblems on the file before it crashes: a red "X" and a yellow padlock. - Nautilus will delete the file without crashing, even if a "Trash" window is open, as long as no file is selected in the "Trash" window. Debugging Information: Backtrace was generated from '/usr/bin/nautilus' (no debugging symbols found) Using host libthread_db library "/lib/tls/i686/cmov/libthread_db.so.1". (no debugging symbols found) [Thread debugging using libthread_db enabled] [New Thread -1225120064 (LWP 23636)] [New Thread -1227711568 (LWP 23654)] (no debugging symbols found) 0xb7fa9410 in ?? ()
+ Trace 133194
------- Bug created by bug-buddy at 2007-05-09 03:28 ------- Unknown version 2.14.3 in product nautilus. Setting version to "2.14.x".
Thanks for taking the time to report this bug. Unfortunately, that stack trace is missing some elements that will help a lot to solve the problem, so it will be hard for the developers to fix that crash. Can you get us a stack trace with debugging symbols? Please see http://live.gnome.org/GettingTraces for more information on how to do so. Thanks in advance!
If it is not possible for someone else to reproduce this crash, I will attempt to install the debugging info (is there a Debian "Etch" package for this?) tomorrow and create another trace
(In reply to comment #2) > If it is not possible for someone else to reproduce this crash, I will attempt > to install the debugging info (is there a Debian "Etch" package for this?) > tomorrow and create another trace I can't reproduce it locally - using Debian as well, but the unstable 2.18.1-2 version of nautilus. You will need to install nautilus-dbg, libgtk2.0-0-dbg, libglib2.0-0-dbg and libgnomevfs2-0-dbg, all of which are available in Etch. That should be enough to get a better trace.
I have already started downloading the "gnome-dbg" metapackage. ETA 4-7 hours @ 56kbps. Fortunately, it will have all night to do it ;-). Tomorrow, once all the *-dbg packages are installed, I will attempt to reproduce the crash. Thanks for responding so soon!
Created attachment 88054 [details] Stack trace w. debug symbols To generate this backtrace, I opened "Trash" and deleted the selected file with the "Delete" key. If you need any more backtraces, using other techniques to delete the file, let me know.
Hmm. Still appears to not have very much. Can you reproduce this while running nautilis under gdb? See http://live.gnome.org/GettingTraces/Details#gdb-not-yet-running for details how to do this. That should get us a better trace. You will probably also need to run "gnome-session remove nautilus" first in order to remove the existing running nautilus such that you can start a new one under gdb.
Created attachment 88111 [details] gdb backtrace Reproduced crash while running Nautilus under gdb. Deleted by using "Delete" key.
Do you still need more info about this, or is there something more I can do to help?
Sorry, I'd managed to miss this report in the middle of all of the other bug reports I'm dealing with. Looks like a unique and good stacktrace, marking as NEW so the Nautilus developers can have a proper look at it. Copying stacktrace here for ease of searching.
+ Trace 135486
One thing you may wish to try is upgrading to Nautilus 2.18 (available in Debian testing right now), and seeing if you can reproduce this bug with that version.
Okay, how do I pull in a single package from Debian testing to Debian "Etch", or is it easier / better to upgrade "Etch" to testing?
Actually, I was incorrect, it's only available in unstable, not testing yet. But the same instructions still apply :-) There two major ways: a) Go to the package page for nautilus in unstable (http://packages.debian.org/unstable/gnome/nautilus), go to the table marked "Download nautilus" and click on your architecture (i386?). This will direct you to a mirror page where you can download the nautilus 2.18 .deb which you can install directly. This will probably have a whole series of dependencies that aren't in Etch, and you'll need to go to the package pages for each of these other packages and get their .deb's as well (and their dependencies, and so on...). This is a fairly annoying way to get new packages, but it has the advantage of being the way least likely to screw with the rest of your system. b) Alternately, you can try apt "pinning". http://wiki.debian.org/AptPinning has a pretty good guide, but the basic idea is that you have multiple lines in your /etc/apt/sources.list for stable and unstable (and testing if you want it), and most of your system stays as stable with only some packages upgraded to unstable (i.e. nautilus+dependencies). This is actually what I do on my system, but it's non-trivial and there's a risk of managing to upgrade larger chunks of your system to unstable, which may cause problems.
I have enabled pinning, so I can pull in packages from Debian "testing" and "unstable". However, I am unable to install nautilus 2.18 without upgrading several important libraries, e.g. libc6, libselinux1 and dependencies, along with several GNOME libraries to "unstable", and I am a little uncomfortable with doing this. Is there any way I can reduce the dependencies for nautilus to install it on "Etch", e.g. by installing from source? Another option, if it is possible the bug is in one of "Etch's" libraries, is that I could clone my "Etch" partition and upgrade *that* to "unstable". Which would be the best way to progress?
You can try recompiling Nautilus 2.18 from source, but unless you've done something like that before, I'd advise against it (If you still want to do this, http://doc.cliss21.com/index.php?title=Backports has some initial notes on how to compile an existing debian package for a different version, but they're not very clear). Personally, I'd just go with upgrading libc6 et al. to unstable, but that's only something to do if you're willing to live with the potential consequences. Unstable is called that for a good reason, and it often has significant issues in various packages. If you're not running into this bug that often, then leave all of this alone, but if you want to get it fixed, then you're going to need to upgrade to 2.18. We've got limited resources here, and anything that can't get reproduced in the latest versions of the software tends to get ignored. In short, it's up to you!
We have an Ubuntu bug with a similar backtrace here: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/nautilus/+bug/183440
Updating fields as for comment #15.
*** Bug 533662 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 552675 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 555600 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 558612 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Closing as OBSOLETE (2.20-only crash). Please reopen if someone can reproduce it with Nautilus >= 2.22, thanks.
*** Bug 560868 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 560968 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 562764 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 563773 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 564494 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 575819 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***