Bug 647874
| Summary: | [abrt] evolution-2.32.0-2.fc14: Process /usr/bin/evolution was killed by signal 11 (SIGSEGV) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Christian Raschke <christian> | ||||
| Component: | evolution | Assignee: | Matthew Barnes <mbarnes> | ||||
| Status: | CLOSED NEXTRELEASE | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> | ||||
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |||||
| Priority: | low | ||||||
| Version: | 14 | CC: | bernie+fedora, bochecha, fuubah, jlaska, lucilanga, mbarnes, mcrha, poc, ribbones, sscott, whayutin | ||||
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||||||
| Target Release: | --- | ||||||
| Hardware: | x86_64 | ||||||
| OS: | Linux | ||||||
| Whiteboard: | abrt_hash:0bf8a94af66ee263d84247b6a049c49da1dcbf33 | ||||||
| Fixed In Version: | evolution-data-server-2.32.1 | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | ||||
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |||||
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||||||
| Last Closed: | 2010-11-05 10:27:17 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: | |||||||
| Attachments: |
|
||||||
|
Description
Christian Raschke
2010-10-29 18:53:51 UTC
Created attachment 456534 [details]
File: backtrace
Package: evolution-2.32.0-2.fc14 Architecture: x86_64 OS Release: Fedora release 14 (Laughlin) How to reproduce ----- 1.Launched evolution, it crashed, then opened and crashed again. 2. 3. Thanks for a bug report. This particular one had been fixed upstream [1] and the fix will be included in 2.32.1. Please see [1] for any further updates. [1] https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=631290 *** Bug 646591 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** *** Bug 634208 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** *** Bug 650947 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** Trying to install the latest Koji build of 2.32.1 for x86_64 but it's asking for x686 and x386 dependencies. Is this right? The URL is http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=205012 (In reply to comment #7) > Trying to install the latest Koji build of 2.32.1 for x86_64 but it's asking > for x686 and x386 dependencies. Is this right? The URL is > http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=205012 Nope, it isn't. Maybe because the build isn't complete yet. I'm finishing the update at the moment. And will see what it'll show. *** Bug 654029 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** (In reply to comment #8) > (In reply to comment #7) > > Trying to install the latest Koji build of 2.32.1 for x86_64 but it's asking > > for x686 and x386 dependencies. Is this right? The URL is > > http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=205012 > > Nope, it isn't. Maybe because the build isn't complete yet. I'm finishing the > update at the moment. And will see what it'll show. I tried this on two different F14 installations and it did the same thing on both of them. Then (following a suggestion on the Evo list) I tried running yum directly with the URLs of the new packages rather than downloading them first, and it worked correctly. I checked that the rpms in both scenarios are the same and they are (bit-for-bit comparison). I'll try to confirm this on my other machine, but it looks like a problem with yum rather than Evo. Mystery solved: when I manually downloaded the rpms, I omitted evolution-help and the installation wanted the i686 packages. Using the direct yum method, evolution-help was included and the installation worked correctly. On manually downloading evolution-help, the install also proceeded correctly without asking for i686 packages. I still don't understand why this should be the case (evolution-help 2.32.0 was already installed) but it looks less like a problem with yum itself and more like something to do with the packaging. *** Bug 654995 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** *** Bug 655683 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** |