After an evaluation, GNOME has moved from Bugzilla to GitLab. Learn more about GitLab.
No new issues can be reported in GNOME Bugzilla anymore.
To report an issue in a GNOME project, go to GNOME GitLab.
Do not go to GNOME Gitlab for: Bluefish, Doxygen, GnuCash, GStreamer, java-gnome, LDTP, NetworkManager, Tomboy.
Bug 679402 - segfault in bftextview2_run_scanner
segfault in bftextview2_run_scanner
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Product: bluefish
Classification: Other
Component: application
2.0.3
Other Linux
: Normal normal
: 2.2.4
Assigned To: Bluefish Maintainer(s)
Bluefish Maintainer(s)
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
 
Reported: 2012-07-04 15:44 UTC by Paul Howarth
Modified: 2012-08-24 12:25 UTC
See Also:
GNOME target: ---
GNOME version: ---


Attachments
Source code for file where crash happened (44.97 KB, text/plain)
2012-07-04 15:44 UTC, Paul Howarth
Details
Backtrace from Fedora bug 824464 (61.78 KB, text/plain)
2012-07-04 15:45 UTC, Paul Howarth
Details

Description Paul Howarth 2012-07-04 15:44:18 UTC
Created attachment 218019 [details]
Source code for file where crash happened

This report originated as Fedora Bug #824464 (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=824464). The Fedora 16 package of bluefish 2.0.3 has quite a few patches as a result of previous fixes, so I'll attach the bftextview2_scanner.c code included in the build. No word from the original reporter as to whether the crash is repeatable - they just said "bluefish has crashed after I tried to open an html file".
Comment 1 Paul Howarth 2012-07-04 15:45:03 UTC
Created attachment 218020 [details]
Backtrace from Fedora bug 824464
Comment 2 Olivier Sessink 2012-08-17 09:56:08 UTC
This is likely fixed in the 2.2 series. However, because we changed the scanning engine to do incremental scanning, there is no backport possible. Is this an issue for Fedora?
Comment 3 Paul Howarth 2012-08-24 11:54:06 UTC
(In reply to comment #2)
> This is likely fixed in the 2.2 series. However, because we changed the
> scanning engine to do incremental scanning, there is no backport possible. Is
> this an issue for Fedora?

Not a biggie. I'm not seeing many duplicates of this and Fedora 16 will be end of life in five months or so (Fedora 17 has 2.2). I'm reluctant to update 2.0->2.2 because of the (albeit slight) UI changes, which are factors to consider when updating according to Fedora's updates policy, though I may end up having to do so for EPEL-6, which still has 2.0.3 and a long life ahead of it.
Comment 4 Olivier Sessink 2012-08-24 12:17:44 UTC
what is the release policy for EPEL regarding feature changes?

2.0.3 is relatively stable, and from 2.0.3 to 2.2.3 there have been lots of changes.
Comment 5 Paul Howarth 2012-08-24 12:25:00 UTC
EPEL is actually stricter than Fedora in this respect:

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Updates_Policy#Stable_Releases
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/GuidelinesAndPolicies#Policy

However, Fedora releases reach end of life much more quickly than EPEL releases, which makes it easier to ignore bugs in old versions and just suggest to people that they update to the latest release.

If there was a serious issue with 2.0.x in EPEL I'd have to consider updating to 2.2.x as otherwise it would be unsupportable.