Bug 11124 - purp-0.9.2-2 crashes under redhat-6.2
Summary: purp-0.9.2-2 crashes under redhat-6.2
Alias: None
Product: Red Hat Powertools
Classification: Retired
Component: purp   
(Show other bugs)
Version: 6.2
Hardware: i386 Linux
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Jeff Johnson
QA Contact:
: 11442 (view as bug list)
Depends On:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
Reported: 2000-04-30 15:24 UTC by Jean Berthomieu
Modified: 2008-05-01 15:37 UTC (History)
0 users

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2000-07-04 13:28:05 UTC
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---

Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Jean Berthomieu 2000-04-30 15:24:58 UTC
When running purp-0.9.2-2 (from powertools-6.2), under redhat-6.2, I get
the message :
purp: error in loading shared libraries: purp: undefined symbol: fdOpen
then purp exits.
(system installed straight from box).

Comment 1 Jean Berthomieu 2000-04-30 16:02:59 UTC
Too bad I could not assign the right component to this bug since it's missing
from the list.
I tried to set it in plain text field with no avail.
...So it has been assigned the first item in the list (9wm).

Comment 2 Tim Powers 2000-05-08 13:52:59 UTC
I can't duplicate this on my end. Can you please tell me what you are doing when
this happens? Is it just on startup or when you are already using it?


Comment 3 Jean Berthomieu 2000-05-16 12:01:59 UTC
This has to do with rpm-3.0.4.  I posted another bug to "rpm" component.
Meanwhile, we can just reinstall previous "rpm-3.0.3" from RH 6.1 dist.

Comment 4 Tim Powers 2000-05-16 13:57:59 UTC
Assigning this to Jeff, he wants all things RPM related.

Comment 5 Jean Berthomieu 2000-07-04 13:28:05 UTC
Thanks to Anders "Pugo" Karlsson, there is a new release of "purp" that runs on
rh 6.2.
You can download it from:


Source available too, and Web at: <http://www.lysator.liu.se/purp/>

BTW, you can close bug ID #11442 too, which anyway, was never assigned.

Comment 6 Jean Berthomieu 2000-07-04 13:39:21 UTC
*** Bug 11442 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.