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 115454 - "man cvs" crashes gnome-terminal
"man cvs" crashes gnome-terminal
Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 95615
Product: gnome-terminal
Classification: Core
Component: general
unspecified
Other other
: Normal critical
: ---
Assigned To: Havoc Pennington
GNOME Terminal Maintainers
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
 
Reported: 2003-06-16 00:47 UTC by doug
Modified: 2004-12-22 21:47 UTC
See Also:
GNOME target: ---
GNOME version: ---


Description doug 2003-06-18 13:39:37 UTC 
Package: gnome-terminal
Severity: critical
Version: 2.0.1
Synopsis: "man cvs" crashes gnome-terminal
Bugzilla-Product: gnome-terminal
Bugzilla-Component: general
BugBuddy-GnomeVersion: 2.0 (2.0.3)

Description:
Description of Problem:
Running "man cvs" crashes gnome-terminal.


Steps to reproduce the problem:
1. Open gnome-terminal
2. Type "man cvs"

Actual Results:
segfault

Expected Results:
Display the cvs man pages

How often does this happen?
Every time.  Reproducible.

Additional Information:




Debugging Information:

Backtrace was generated from '/usr/bin/gnome-terminal'

(no debugging symbols found)...[New Thread 16384 (LWP 20503)]
0x408ee7f7 in waitpid ()
   from /lib/i686/libpthread.so.0

+ Trace 37937

Thread 1 (Thread 16384 (LWP 20503))

  • #0 waitpid
    from /lib/i686/libpthread.so.0
  • #1 libgnomeui_module_info_get
    from /usr/lib/libgnomeui-2.so.0
  • #2 __pthread_sighandler
    from /lib/i686/libpthread.so.0
  • #3 <signal handler called>
  • #4 XInitImage
    from /usr/X11R6/lib/libX11.so.6
  • #5 _XftSmoothGlyphGray
    from /usr/lib/libXft.so.2
  • #6 XftGlyphSpecCore
    from /usr/lib/libXft.so.2
  • #7 XftDrawGlyphSpec
    from /usr/lib/libXft.so.2
  • #8 XftDrawCharSpec
    from /usr/lib/libXft.so.2
  • #9 vte_terminal_draw_cells
    from /usr/lib/libvte.so.2
  • #10 vte_terminal_draw_row
    from /usr/lib/libvte.so.2
  • #11 vte_terminal_paint
    from /usr/lib/libvte.so.2
  • #12 vte_terminal_expose
    from /usr/lib/libvte.so.2
  • #13 _gtk_marshal_BOOLEAN__BOXED
    from /usr/lib/libgtk-x11-2.0.so.0
  • #14 g_type_class_meta_marshal
    from /usr/lib/libgobject-2.0.so.0
  • #15 g_closure_invoke
    from /usr/lib/libgobject-2.0.so.0
  • #16 signal_emit_unlocked_R
    from /usr/lib/libgobject-2.0.so.0
  • #17 g_signal_emit_valist
    from /usr/lib/libgobject-2.0.so.0
  • #18 gtk_signal_emit
    from /usr/lib/libgtk-x11-2.0.so.0
  • #19 gtk_widget_event_internal
    from /usr/lib/libgtk-x11-2.0.so.0
  • #20 gtk_main_do_event
    from /usr/lib/libgtk-x11-2.0.so.0
  • #21 gdk_window_process_updates_internal
    from /usr/lib/libgdk-x11-2.0.so.0
  • #22 gdk_window_process_all_updates
    from /usr/lib/libgdk-x11-2.0.so.0
  • #23 gdk_window_update_idle
    from /usr/lib/libgdk-x11-2.0.so.0
  • #24 g_idle_dispatch
    from /usr/lib/libglib-2.0.so.0
  • #25 g_main_dispatch
    from /usr/lib/libglib-2.0.so.0
  • #26 g_main_context_dispatch
    from /usr/lib/libglib-2.0.so.0
  • #27 g_main_context_iterate
    from /usr/lib/libglib-2.0.so.0
  • #28 g_main_loop_run
    from /usr/lib/libglib-2.0.so.0
  • #29 gtk_main
    from /usr/lib/libgtk-x11-2.0.so.0
  • #30 main
  • #31 __libc_start_main
    from /lib/i686/libc.so.6
  • #0 waitpid
    from /lib/i686/libpthread.so.0 




------- Bug moved to this database by unknown@bugzilla.gnome.org 2003-06-18 09:39 -------

The original reporter (doug@cacas.org) 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, hp@redhat.com.
Comment 1 doug 2003-06-18 13:50:20 UTC 
After upgrading to RH 9.0, no longer occurs.  There must be a mismatch
between some packages I upgraded (the kernel perhaps?) and others that
weren't upgraded until the RH 9.0 install.

This is no longer a bug.
Comment 2 Elijah Newren 2003-06-20 05:05:36 UTC 
Yeah, it looks like a dup of 102099, has been marked as a duplicate of
96439, which has been marked as a duplicate of 95615.  That bug is
still open since people aren't sure whether it's an X bug or something
else and aren't sure whether it's been fixed.  Your comment might
help.  We'll see.  Thanks for the report and the follow up.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 95615 ***