Bug 492115

Summary: Some qt (and other) applications can't start after system update
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: Misha Karpenko <2org2>
Component: qtAssignee: Than Ngo <than>
Status: CLOSED DUPLICATE QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity: high Docs Contact:
Priority: low    
Version: 10CC: ffesti, james.antill, kevin, pmatilai, rdieter, than, tim.lauridsen
Target Milestone: ---   
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: All   
OS: Linux   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2009-03-25 15:27:43 UTC Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:

Description Misha Karpenko 2009-03-25 13:14:31 UTC 
Description of problem:
After system update some applications can't launch. Primarly those which use qt. Standard gnome applications (firefox, gimp etc.) work normally.

How reproducible:
Do the system update after March 25, and check if some of the qt applications start. Tested with these applications: Skype, VirtualBox, Lasfm player, Netbeans. Games: TuxRacer, XMoto. These applications can't start.

Steps to Reproduce:
1. Run sudo yum update.
2. Try launching skype.
  
Actual results:
Application won't start. You can see it in process list, but there is no visible window shown.

Expected results:
Application would launch.

Additional info:
After update it is still possible to launch these applications using sudo command, so the "sudo skype" would launch skype. But under "su" it won't launch.
The bug is also being discussed at http://forums.fedoraforum.org/showthread.php?t=217900
Comment 1 Rex Dieter 2009-03-25 15:24:57 UTC 
system update included what exactly?  (ie, look in /var/log/yum.log for what was updated recently).
Comment 2 Rex Dieter 2009-03-25 15:26:19 UTC 
related to libX11 update perhaps, see bug #492085 ?
Comment 3 Rex Dieter 2009-03-25 15:27:43 UTC 
shrug, let's go with 492085, unless evidence shows otherwise...

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 492085 ***
Comment 4 Misha Karpenko 2009-03-25 15:49:26 UTC 
Yes, it seems the same bug with 492085.