abrt 1.0.3 detected a crash. How to reproduce ----- 1. boot into GNOME 2. click any desktop but current 3. Comment ----- GNOME is really not usable. FC12 not usable. The older kernel metacity crashes, the newer 2.6.32.9 the touchpad doesn't work This is by far the worst release since FC2! Attached file: backtrace cmdline: metacity component: metacity executable: /usr/bin/metacity kernel: 2.6.31.9-174.fc12.i686.PAE package: metacity-2.28.0-14.fc12 rating: 4 reason: Process was terminated by signal 6 (Aborted)
Created attachment 384745 [details] File: backtrace
This is an assertion failure at: pa_assert_se(pthread_mutex_unlock(&m->mutex) == 0); What version of glibc do you have?
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 551055 ***
(In reply to comment #3) > > *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 551055 *** I note that in the process of marking duplicates information is being lost. One of my several reports of this had the glibc information requested which was lost when the bug was marked as dup. Now this one is marked as needinfo, so it will get no attention. Why isn't the bug which is in needinfo state marked as a dup of the one which has the information? Going by age only results in the original bug in needinfo and all other which have submitters ready to provide information being ignored. I have two laptops and a desktop unusable and waiting migration back to FC11 because this bug is not being addressed, and our reports are just being hung on a dead report. I assume this is just bad policy and not an effort to clear the bug queue.
(In reply to comment #4) > I note that in the process of marking duplicates information is being lost. One > of my several reports of this had the glibc information requested which was > lost when the bug was marked as dup. I assume you're talking about bug 551299. From what I see, it was closed as a duplicate _before_ you posted the glibc version to it. Anyway, thanks for the requested information, I'll copy it to the open BZ.
(In reply to comment #4) > (In reply to comment #3) > > > > *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 551055 *** > > I note that in the process of marking duplicates information is being lost. One > of my several reports of this had the glibc information requested which was > lost when the bug was marked as dup. Now this one is marked as needinfo, so it > will get no attention. It's a legitimate concern in general, and generally the best thing to do in this case is to simply add a comment to the main bug report pointing out that the necessary information has been supplied in a particular duplicate and ask that needinfo be cleared. In this case, this is definitely on Lennart's radar... it's not being neglected because the bug is in needinfo. I don't have a full understanding of this bug, but my understanding is that the problem lies somewhere between glibc and the kernel, and a fix is pending.