GNOME Bugzilla – Bug 470387
Gparted crash when I resfresh Devices
Last modified: 2008-08-12 12:27:11 UTC
Steps to reproduce: 1. Gparted > Refresh Devices Stack trace: root@joel-gutsy:~# gdb gparted GNU gdb 6.6-debian Copyright (C) 2006 Free Software Foundation, Inc. GDB is free software, covered by the GNU General Public License, and you are welcome to change it and/or distribute copies of it under certain conditions. Type "show copying" to see the conditions. There is absolutely no warranty for GDB. Type "show warranty" for details. This GDB was configured as "i486-linux-gnu"... (no debugging symbols found) Using host libthread_db library "/lib/tls/i686/cmov/libthread_db.so.1". (gdb) run Starting program: /usr/bin/gparted (no debugging symbols found) Failed to read a valid object file image from memory. (no debugging symbols found) (no debugging symbols found) (no debugging symbols found) (no debugging symbols found) (no debugging symbols found) [Thread debugging using libthread_db enabled] [New Thread -1225001280 (LWP 7919)] ====================== libparted : 1.7.1 ====================== [New Thread -1241031792 (LWP 7922)] [Thread -1241031792 (LWP 7922) exited] [New Thread -1241031792 (LWP 7931)] [Thread -1241031792 (LWP 7931) exited] Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault. [Switching to Thread -1225001280 (LWP 7919)] 0xb7249f75 in std::basic_string<char, std::char_traits<char>, std::allocator<char> >::basic_string () from /usr/lib/libstdc++.so.6 (gdb) thread apply all bt
+ Trace 157970
Thread 1 (Thread -1225001280 (LWP 7919))
Other information:
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 and reopen this bug or report a new one. Thanks in advance!
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/gparted/+bug/136485/comments/1
traces as follow: ".
+ Trace 166272
Thread 1 (process 8882)
The bug has been fixed in Debian/Ubuntu. Please see http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=446522 for the patch.
hi daniel ! Ok. Then I close the bug, right ?
No, it does not appear to be fixed in GParted yet. At least the patch (http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?msg=15;filename=gparted-refresh-devices-crash.diff;att=1;bug=446522) is not applied in gparted trunk (http://svn.gnome.org/viewvc/gparted/trunk/src/Win_GParted.cc?revision=752&view=markup).
Ok Daniel, Isee. Well, the problem is that Bart is away since months... I gonna try to apply the patch on a tarball, and then put it in the livecd. I think I should copy the svn repo of GParted and set it somewhere else. I don't know what to do. BTW I have no C+ maintainer for Gparted. I am afraid the project is stopped, for this reason...
daniel, I have successfully patched gparted ebuild, which is good for the livecd. refresh works very well each time. This was important since we now use parted-1.8.8 (and no more 1.7.1). I am still waiting for Sf team decision, about GParted soft : if they give me full access (like admin), I will continue the project (but will need help to go ahead) ; if they don't.... Dunno what I will try. thx for the patch, anyway :)
Hi Larry, I just came along to signal this bug and found it was already known and "fixed", but not committed. Are you saying that Bart has gone incommunicado and is the only person with admin rights to the SF project ?! Can you give an update on the state of play? Since your last post goes back a while I guess you will know if SF are going to resolve this or if another solution needs to be found. TIA, gg.
gg, I dont know what to do. Just like I did with gparted-livecd, I could push gparted svn to tuxfamily and then have full admin access mode, and would be able to give rights to other devs. But this mean that the SF repo will be left. I wonder if it would the best solution. SF told me to recreate the project with the same name : they will change all rights and give them to me. But in fact I am not the "father" of this project. BTW, I don't even know two words of C++ : what kind of admin would I be :-/ So, if I can find some C++ devs, I will do what I said, pushing a new svn on tuxfamily site. But so far, no body seriouly answers he would come and work on the project. It's a pity, because this tool is really good. Nothing is done for ext4, and many things could be improved, but no dev at home :( any thing to add ? Feel free please, if you have any solution.
Ermm.... why tuxfamily site instead of the obvious svn.gnome.org, considering the project's bug tracker is on gnome.org already?
The patch for this bug has been applied to the new repository on SourceForge. Thank you to all for identifying this problem, and pointing out where to find an existing patch. Curtis
So what is the status of the current gparted module in GNOME svn? http://svn.gnome.org/viewvc/gparted/
svn.gnome.org is not available for the two news devs of gparted. and the gnome team take its time to set it up for us. So we hade to move svn to SF, unfortunately ! http://gparted.sourceforge.net/svn.php
Claude, Laurent de Trogoff and I are working towards resurrecting the GParted project. We have been in email discussions with the original developer, Bart Hakvoort. Bart has indicated that he is very busy, and has agreed to pass control of the project over to Laurent and I. We now have administrative access to the project on SourceForge. Unfortunately, Bart appears to no longer have full access to the GNOME SVN repository for GParted (lost his password or something). Laurent had applied to gnome for write access quite a while ago, but has yet to receive a response. Yesterday, I tried to request write access and was unable to locate the GParted project in the list of GNOME Module "Vouchers" on the New Account sign up form (https://mango.gnome.org/new_account.php). I emailed accounts@gnome.org regarding this problem. In the absence of write access to the gnome SVN repository, we migrated the latest gnome SVN code over to SourceForge. Laurent has listed a link to this new SourceForge repository the previous message. If we do not gain write access to the gnome SVN repository in a reasonable timeframe, Laurent and I will proceed with the project long term in the SourceForge repository. Then perhaps we will request that the gnome SVN repository for GParted be closed. Regards, Curtis Gedak
Laurent and Curtis, THANKS for keeping up the good work with GParted. It's a great tool! Now for GNOME SVN access, I will see if I can help to accelerate the process... Regarding this bug, I suppose we can close it ?
Hi Claude, Thank you for your offer to accelerate GNOME SVN access. Anything you can do to accelerate the process would be much appreciated. To clarify, I personally haven't applied for a new account due to the problem listed above (I was unable to find "gparted" in the list of gnome modules on the new account sign up screen). I have only sent an email to accounts@gnome.org regarding the problem. And yes, this bug can probably be closed now. I have made a note in my calendar to close it in one week, assuming no new problems arise with the patch between then and now. Sincerely, Curtis Gedak
Hi guys, I know this is not concerning this bug anymore but I think it's better for you all to get this information in one shot. I personnaly got svn write access in less than 1 or 2 weeks (can't remember exactly) when srag (evolution maintainer) asked me to get one. The thing though (besides broken forms) is that you will probably get quicker response by hanging on the irc channel as long as necessary to get in touch with the guys reponsible of this, once you got them, it should be really quick (tm). It's not that they don't want to give access but you known, life... Anyway thanks for taking over this module, and please include po/LINGUAS patch in next roll :)
Thank you for the information. In the release steps I have added checking the GNOME repository for language updates.
Bug #468598 is a duplicate of this request.
*** Bug 525726 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 438572 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 468598 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***