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 104099 - Nautilus Crash (Error 6)
Nautilus Crash (Error 6)
Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 94598
Product: nautilus
Classification: Core
Component: general
unspecified
Other other
: Normal normal
: ---
Assigned To: Thomas Vander Stichele
Nautilus Maintainers
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
 
Reported: 2003-01-21 22:45 UTC by lisa.daly
Modified: 2004-12-22 21:47 UTC
See Also:
GNOME target: ---
GNOME version: ---


Description lisa.daly 2003-01-21 22:47:23 UTC 
Package: nautilus
Severity: normal
Version: 2.0.6
Synopsis: Nautilus Crash (Error 6)
Bugzilla-Product: nautilus
Bugzilla-Component: nautilus-media
BugBuddy-GnomeVersion: 2.0 (2.0.3)

Description:
Description of Problem:
I just got an error message from Nautilus when I booted up my computer
because my idiot friend hit the power button when I told him to restart
the computer so I could get into Windows XP... moron

Steps to reproduce the problem:
1. Turn off computer by pressing switch 
2. 
3. 

Actual Results:


Expected Results:


How often does this happen?
First time thusfar, but I'd rather not reproduce the problem... I'm new
enough to Linux already.

Additional Information:




Debugging Information:

Backtrace was generated from '/usr/bin/nautilus'

(no debugging symbols found)...[New Thread 8192 (LWP 1086)]
[New Thread 16385 (LWP 1095)]
[New Thread 8194 (LWP 1096)]
[New Thread 16387 (LWP 1097)]
[New Thread 24580 (LWP 1098)]
[New Thread 32773 (LWP 1099)]
0x420ae169 in wait4 () from /lib/i686/libc.so.6

+ Trace 32988

Thread 1 (Thread 8192 (LWP 1086))

  • #0 wait4
    from /lib/i686/libc.so.6
  • #1 __DTOR_END__
    from /lib/i686/libc.so.6
  • #2 waitpid
    from /lib/i686/libpthread.so.0
  • #3 libgnomeui_module_info_get
    from /usr/lib/libgnomeui-2.so.0
  • #4 __pthread_sighandler
    from /lib/i686/libpthread.so.0
  • #5 <signal handler called>
  • #6 kill
    from /lib/i686/libc.so.6
  • #7 raise
    from /lib/i686/libpthread.so.0
  • #8 abort
    from /lib/i686/libc.so.6
  • #9 g_logv
    from /usr/lib/libglib-2.0.so.0
  • #10 g_log
    from /usr/lib/libglib-2.0.so.0
  • #11 gnome_vfs_monitor_callback
    from /usr/lib/libgnomevfs-2.so.0
  • #12 fam_callback
    from /usr/lib/gnome-vfs-2.0/modules/libfile.so
  • #13 g_io_unix_dispatch
    from /usr/lib/libglib-2.0.so.0
  • #14 g_main_dispatch
    from /usr/lib/libglib-2.0.so.0
  • #15 g_main_context_dispatch
    from /usr/lib/libglib-2.0.so.0
  • #16 g_main_context_iterate
    from /usr/lib/libglib-2.0.so.0
  • #17 g_main_loop_run
    from /usr/lib/libglib-2.0.so.0
  • #18 gtk_main
    from /usr/lib/libgtk-x11-2.0.so.0
  • #19 main
  • #20 __libc_start_main
    from /lib/i686/libc.so.6
  • #0 wait4
    from /lib/i686/libc.so.6 




------- Bug moved to this database by unknown@bugzilla.gnome.org 2003-01-21 17:47 -------

The original reporter (lisa.daly@attbi.com) of this bug does not have an account here.
Reassigning to the exporter, unknown@bugzilla.gnome.org.
Reassigning to the default owner of the component, thomas@urgent.rug.ac.be.
Comment 1 Thomas Vander Stichele 2003-01-21 23:28:09 UTC 
This has got to be the best/cutest report I've ever read, it really
put a smile on my face :) I would almost ask you to marry me.  I'm
just sad this bug doesn't belong in my module, so I hope it will help
whoever it belongs too.

BTW, I'm not kidding, it really was a very nice report :) I'm not
poking fun or anything at all.  And the fact that someone else fixed a
bug for me that's been killing me the last two weeks might have helped
my good mood too.

Hope your problem gets fixed, Lisa.  Reassigning to general.
Comment 2 Elijah Newren 2003-01-21 23:50:40 UTC 
Made me smile too.  :)

I found that this looks like a duplicate of bug 94598, which people
believe is confined to redhat 8.0 (and was likely fixed by the first
beta of redhat 8.1).  There's not a lot of information in that report,
but you can read it at http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=94598
if you think it may be helpful.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 94598 ***