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 366404 - crash in Evolution: Again!
crash in Evolution: Again!
Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 366403
Product: evolution
Classification: Applications
Component: general
2.8.x (obsolete)
Other All
: High critical
: ---
Assigned To: Evolution Shell Maintainers Team
Evolution QA team
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
 
Reported: 2006-10-28 17:28 UTC by ubuntu
Modified: 2006-10-28 20:15 UTC
See Also:
GNOME target: ---
GNOME version: 2.15/2.16


Description ubuntu 2006-10-28 17:28:21 UTC 
What were you doing when the application crashed?
Again!


Distribution: Ubuntu 6.10 (edgy)
Gnome Release: 2.16.1 2006-10-02 (Ubuntu)
BugBuddy Version: 2.16.0

Memory status: size: 128200704 vsize: 0 resident: 128200704 share: 0 rss: 29380608 rss_rlim: 0
CPU usage: start_time: 1162056476 rtime: 0 utime: 202 stime: 0 cutime:174 cstime: 0 timeout: 28 it_real_value: 0 frequency: 0

Backtrace was generated from '/usr/bin/evolution-2.8'

(no debugging symbols found)
Using host libthread_db library "/lib/tls/i686/cmov/libthread_db.so.1".
(no debugging symbols found)
[Thread debugging using libthread_db enabled]
[New Thread -1232943440 (LWP 5793)]
[New Thread -1326543968 (LWP 5809)]
[New Thread -1318151264 (LWP 5808)]
[New Thread -1309279328 (LWP 5806)]
[New Thread -1286603872 (LWP 5805)]
[New Thread -1268474976 (LWP 5804)]
[New Thread -1276867680 (LWP 5802)]
[New Thread -1260045408 (LWP 5798)]
[New Thread -1251652704 (LWP 5797)]
(no debugging symbols found)
0xffffe410 in __kernel_vsyscall ()

+ Trace 79372







Comment 1


Karsten Bräckelmann





          2006-10-28 19:23:18 UTC
        




*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 366403 ***






Comment 2


Steven Coco





          2006-10-28 20:15:12 UTC
        



Sorry for the useless description on this report: you are right in marking the duplicate... Now I know more about the end result of those descriptions!