Bug 586257

Summary: [abrt] crash in evolution-exchange-2.28.3-1.fc12: Process /usr/libexec/evolution/2.28/evolution-exchange-storage was killed by signal 11 (SIGSEGV)
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: Kev O'Neill <kon23uk>
Component: evolution-exchangeAssignee: Matthew Barnes <mbarnes>
Status: CLOSED DUPLICATE QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: low    
Version: 12CC: mbarnes, mcrha
Target Milestone: ---   
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: i686   
OS: Linux   
Whiteboard: abrt_hash:45e63b10152bbd6c8f0a1182c0c276d7d76ffda8
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2010-05-25 09:13:10 UTC Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:
Attachments:
Description Flags
File: backtrace none

Description Kev O'Neill 2010-04-27 07:25:06 UTC
abrt 1.0.9 detected a crash.

architecture: i686
Attached file: backtrace
cmdline: /usr/libexec/evolution/2.28/evolution-exchange-storage --oaf-activate-iid=OAFIID:GNOME_Evolution_Exchange_Component_Factory:2.28 --oaf-ior-fd=33
comment: Looked at attachment in Exchange 2003 based mail...
component: evolution-exchange
executable: /usr/libexec/evolution/2.28/evolution-exchange-storage
global_uuid: 45e63b10152bbd6c8f0a1182c0c276d7d76ffda8
kernel: 2.6.32.11-99.fc12.i686.PAE
package: evolution-exchange-2.28.3-1.fc12
rating: 4
reason: Process /usr/libexec/evolution/2.28/evolution-exchange-storage was killed by signal 11 (SIGSEGV)
release: Fedora release 12 (Constantine)

How to reproduce
-----
1. ?
2.
3.

Comment 1 Kev O'Neill 2010-04-27 07:25:10 UTC
Created attachment 409383 [details]
File: backtrace

Comment 2 Karel Klíč 2010-05-25 09:13:10 UTC

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 560569 ***

Comment 3 Karel Klíč 2010-05-25 09:13:10 UTC
This bug appears to have been filled using a buggy version of ABRT, because
it contains a backtrace which is a duplicate of backtrace from bug #560569.

Sorry for the inconvenience.