Bug 595181

Summary: [abrt] crash in epiphany-2.28.2-1.fc12: Process /usr/bin/epiphany was killed by signal 11 (SIGSEGV)
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: Anton Schenker <anton4linux>
Component: epiphanyAssignee: Gecko Maintainer <gecko-bugs-nobody>
Status: CLOSED DUPLICATE QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: low    
Version: 12CC: gecko-bugs-nobody
Target Milestone: ---   
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: i686   
OS: Linux   
Whiteboard: abrt_hash:80a6a3e610d79e2a83000a6670725f662ae0ca54
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2010-05-24 15:07:42 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 Anton Schenker 2010-05-23 21:27:54 UTC 
abrt 1.0.9 detected a crash.

architecture: i686
Attached file: backtrace
cmdline: epiphany
component: epiphany
executable: /usr/bin/epiphany
global_uuid: 80a6a3e610d79e2a83000a6670725f662ae0ca54
kernel: 2.6.32.12-115.fc12.i686.PAE
package: epiphany-2.28.2-1.fc12
rating: 4
reason: Process /usr/bin/epiphany was killed by signal 11 (SIGSEGV)
release: Fedora release 12 (Constantine)

comment
-----
I like the idea of a Gnome intgrated and simple interface Web Browser, but the relaiblilty issues of this browser were bad and are getting worse. It seems as though the Epiphany-extensions are the culprit, but I have to test more to confirm.
Anton.

How to reproduce
-----
1.Open Epiphany
2.Click on link
3.Reproducable 100% of the time
Comment 1 Anton Schenker 2010-05-23 21:27:56 UTC 
Created attachment 416000 [details]
File: backtrace
Comment 2 Karel Klíč 2010-05-24 15:07:42 UTC 

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 562290 ***
Comment 3 Karel Klíč 2010-05-24 15:07:42 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 #562290.

Sorry for the inconvenience.