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 302653 - Crashed on showing preferances of a .part file
Crashed on showing preferances of a .part file
Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 151024
Product: nautilus
Classification: Core
Component: general
unspecified
Other other
: Normal normal
: ---
Assigned To: Nautilus Maintainers
Nautilus Maintainers
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
 
Reported: 2005-05-01 19:24 UTC by Andrei A.T.
Modified: 2005-05-02 01:56 UTC
See Also:
GNOME target: ---
GNOME version: 2.7/2.8



Description Andrei A.T. 2005-05-01 19:24:39 UTC
Distribution: Fedora Core release 3 (Heidelberg)
Package: nautilus
Severity: normal
Version: GNOME2.8.0 unspecified
Gnome-Distributor: Red Hat, Inc
Synopsis: Crashed on showing preferances of a .part file
Bugzilla-Product: nautilus
Bugzilla-Component: general
Bugzilla-Version: unspecified
BugBuddy-GnomeVersion: 2.0 (2.8.0)
Description:
Description of the crash:
I was downloading SUSE 9.2 DVD while playing Uplink. Something odd
happened, my download speed, and amount left were both in the negatives.
So, I cancelled the downoad and was left with a .iso and a .iso.part
file. I was checking to see if they were done or not. The .iso file was
fine, but had 0 bytes in it. The other was 2.4 gigs, but it crashed
natulus when I viewed it. The file was downloaded with Firefox.

Steps to reproduce the crash:
1. Select properties on a firefox .part file.
2. 
3. 

Expected Results:
Natulus crashes and the user has the option to restart it.


How often does this happen?
Every time I perform the operation.


Additional Information:



Debugging Information:

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

(no debugging symbols found)...Using host libthread_db library
"/lib/tls/libthread_db.so.1".
(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)...[Thread debugging using
libthread_db enabled]
[New Thread -1208125760 (LWP 16068)]
[New Thread -1222734928 (LWP 16086)]
[Thread debugging using libthread_db enabled]
[New Thread -1208125760 (LWP 16068)]
[New Thread -1222734928 (LWP 16086)]
[New Thread -1222468688 (LWP 16085)]
[New Thread -1222202448 (LWP 16084)]
[New Thread -1221542992 (LWP 16083)]
[New Thread -1211016272 (LWP 16080)]
[Thread debugging using libthread_db enabled]
[New Thread -1208125760 (LWP 16068)]
[New Thread -1222734928 (LWP 16086)]
0x006417a2 in ?? () at rtld.c:576 from /lib/ld-linux.so.2
576	relocate_doit (void *a)

Thread 6 (Thread -1211016272 (LWP 16080))

  • #0 ??
    at rtld.c line 576
  • #1 *__GI___poll
    at ../sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/poll.c line 86
  • #2 g_main_context_acquire
    from /usr/lib/libglib-2.0.so.0
  • #3 g_main_loop_run
    from /usr/lib/libglib-2.0.so.0
  • #4 link_thread_io_context
    from /usr/lib/libORBit-2.so.0
  • #5 ??
    from /usr/lib/libglib-2.0.so.0
  • #6 ??
  • #7 g_static_private_free
    from /usr/lib/libglib-2.0.so.0




------- Bug moved to this database by unknown@bugzilla.gnome.org 2005-05-01 19:24 UTC -------


The original reporter of this bug does not have
   an account here. Reassigning to the person who moved
   it here, unknown@bugzilla.gnome.org.
   Previous reporter was garoth@gmail.com.

Comment 1 Elijah Newren 2005-05-02 01:56:42 UTC
Thanks for the bug report. This particular bug has already been reported into
our bug tracking system, but please feel free to report any further bugs you find.

Matches the stack trace in bug 157798, which has been marked as a duplicate of
151024

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 151024 ***