GNOME Bugzilla – Bug 99648
Nautilus causes segmentation fault when opening
Last modified: 2004-12-22 21:47:04 UTC
From: Ben Hill <ben@javacoder.net> To: submit@bugs.gnome.org X-Mailer: bug-buddy 2.2.0 Subject: Nautilus causes segmentation fault when opening Package: nautilus Severity: blocker Version: 2.0.7 Synopsis: Nautilus causes segmentation fault when opening Bugzilla-Product: nautilus Bugzilla-Component: general BugBuddy-GnomeVersion: 2.0 (2.0.5) Description: Description of Problem: Steps to reproduce the problem: 1. Open foo's home from desktop 2. segmentation fault caused. Actual Results: Segmentation fault Expected Results: Nautilus file manager to run How often does this happen? Every time Additional Information: Running Gnome 2.0 on Debian 3.0 rev0 Woody Debugging Information: Backtrace was generated from '/usr/bin/nautilus' (no debugging symbols found)...(no debugging symbols found)... (no debugging symbols found)...(no debugging symbols found)... (no debugging symbols found)...(no debugging symbols found)... (no debugging symbols found)...(no debugging symbols found)... (no debugging symbols found)...(no debugging symbols found)... (no debugging symbols found)...(no debugging symbols found)... (no debugging symbols found)...(no debugging symbols found)... (no debugging symbols found)...(no debugging symbols found)... (no debugging symbols found)...(no debugging symbols found)... (no debugging symbols found)...(no debugging symbols found)... (no debugging symbols found)...(no debugging symbols found)... (no debugging symbols found)...(no debugging symbols found)... (no debugging symbols found)...(no debugging symbols found)... (no debugging symbols found)...(no debugging symbols found)... (no debugging symbols found)...(no debugging symbols found)... (no debugging symbols found)...(no debugging symbols found)... (no debugging symbols found)...(no debugging symbols found)... (no debugging symbols found)...(no debugging symbols found)... (no debugging symbols found)...(no debugging symbols found)... (no debugging symbols found)...(no debugging symbols found)... (no debugging symbols found)...(no debugging symbols found)... (no debugging symbols found)...(no debugging symbols found)... (no debugging symbols found)...(no debugging symbols found)... (no debugging symbols found)...(no debugging symbols found)... (no debugging symbols found)...[New Thread 16384 (LWP 678)] [New Thread 32769 (LWP 681)] [New Thread 16386 (LWP 682)] [New Thread 32771 (LWP 683)] (no debugging symbols found)... (no debugging symbols found)...(no debugging symbols found)... (no debugging symbols found)...(no debugging symbols found)... (no debugging symbols found)...(no debugging symbols found)... (no debugging symbols found)...(no debugging symbols found)... (no debugging symbols found)...(no debugging symbols found)... (no debugging symbols found)...(no debugging symbols found)... (no debugging symbols found)...(no debugging symbols found)... (no debugging symbols found)...(no debugging symbols found)... (no debugging symbols found)...(no debugging symbols found)... (no debugging symbols found)...(no debugging symbols found)... (no debugging symbols found)...(no debugging symbols found)... (no debugging symbols found)...0x40b112e9 in wait4 () from /lib/libc.so.6
+ Trace 30943
Thread 4 (Thread 32771 (LWP 683))
Thread 3 (Thread 16386 (LWP 682))
Thread 1 (Thread 16384 (LWP 678))
------- Bug moved to this database by unknown@bugzilla.gnome.org 2002-11-26 15:40 ------- Reassigning to the default owner of the component, nautilus-maint@bugzilla.gnome.org.
This looks like a duplicate of 99161, which was marked as a duplicate of 65109. I don't completely understand the reason 99161 is known to be a duplicate of 65109 (though it seems plausible), but since it is I'm going to mark this as a duplicate of 65109. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 65109 ***
So if this is a duplicate, is there a resolution. I did try to find some info about fixing this, but without luck.
Also, as far as I can see (albeit very inexperienced) these bugs dont seem to be dupes... One is for gnome-control-center and the other appears to be a missing XftConfig file when running a libgnomecanvas test. I think, if anything, it is similar to 99622...
From an email, Ben also said: I submitted bug number 99648 about a segfault in Nautillus when attempting to start the file manager... It has been marked a duplicate of 99161, which in turn was marked as a duplicate of 65109. I just thought I'd drop you a mail, as there seemed to be no resolution to the problem. I have just installed the Blackdown JDK and it seems to have fixed the problem. Nautilus starts fine, and doesn't segfault. I know the Blackdown JDK installed some locale stuff, and possibly also some fonts as I seem now to have lots more fonts installed. Anyway, just thought I'd let you know if it is any help... Ben: The fact that you have extra fonts and Nautilus no longer has a problem does make this sound to me like a duplicate of 65109. Of course, I'm still somewhat new to the gnome-bugsquad. Let me respond to some of your questions, and then I'll post an email to the gnome-bugsquad and have them verify things and fill in any details. As you noted, the description of your problem and that in bug 99161 sound very different while your description sounds similar to the (albeit vague) one in 99622. However, if you look at the stack traces, yours appears very different than the one in 99622 which means that the crash at startup was caused by something very different. Also, your stack trace matched the on in 99161 perfectly--meaning that although you both did very different things to get the crash, the same core functions were called which implies that they had the same root problem. However, I don't know exactly why 99161 was marked as a duplicate of 65109. I trusted the person who marked it as such and thus marked your bug as a duplicate of 65109 as well. I believe some comments or changes should be made to 65109 (such as the OS being Solaris only), but I'm not sure the exact ones to make. I guess that's another good reason to send an email to the gnome-bugsquad. Thanks for following up on this, Ben. The comments you've added may prove to be extra helpful information for us on bug 65109.