Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 176621
xscreensavers tries to run non-existent hacks
Last modified: 2007-11-30 17:11:19 EST
From Bugzilla Helper:
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686 (x86_64); en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050922 Fedora/1.0.7-1.1.fc4 Firefox/1.0.7
Description of problem:
I have installed xscreensaver-extras, but not the gl-extras. The xscreensaver in the random mode tries to start its graphical programs (hacks) which are mentioned in the config file but which are not installed.
These not installed programs are not listed in the xscreensaver-demo.
Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
Steps to Reproduce:
1. install xscreensaver-extras, but not xscreensaver-gl-extras
2. configure random screensaver (short timeouts recommended)
3. wait until one of the not installed programs is randomly chosen.
Actual Results: error message similar to this appears:
xscreensaver: child pid PID (PROGRAM-NAME) exited abnormally
where PROGRAM-NAME is a name of a program that does not exist
Expected Results: Only installed hacks should be launched
Bug 164761 might be related to this.
That was fixed in 4.24.
The fix is available upstream, so it looks like a very simple case, but after
five months waiting there is still no update available. Could you please take a
look at this bug ? Thank you.
Mamoru Tasaka has packaged xscreensaver 4.24 has part of his work in migrating
it to Fedora Extras (See bug 189268).
We might be able to use his packages. Otherwise, we might just have to backport
If you could try Mamoru's packages or get the relevant bits from the upstream
tarball (as a patch) then we can push an update faster.
Either way adding to FC4 Update tracker, so we don't forget about it.
Created attachment 130553 [details]
A patch to fix this bug backported from 4.24
This patch works for me
This report targets the FC3 or FC4 products, which have now been EOL'd.
Could you please check that it still applies to a current Fedora release, and
either update the target product or close it ?
FC6 is fine.
Anyway I feel dissappointed that providing a patch that you asked for (comments
#3 and #4) was not sufficient to have this bug corrected.