Bug 594987 - [abrt] crash in gnome-system-monitor-2.28.0-3.fc12: raise: Process /usr/bin/gnome-system-monitor was killed by signal 6 (SIGABRT)
Summary: [abrt] crash in gnome-system-monitor-2.28.0-3.fc12: raise: Process /usr/bin/g...
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED DUPLICATE of bug 586075
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: gnome-system-monitor
Version: 12
Hardware: x86_64
OS: Linux
low
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Søren Sandmann Pedersen
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard: abrt_hash:cd689027d1a7c8e82a7042cc1cc...
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2010-05-22 14:57 UTC by Fabian Affolter
Modified: 2014-06-18 09:12 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2010-05-25 09:22:50 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:

Attachments (Terms of Use)
File: backtrace (12.15 KB, text/plain)
2010-05-22 14:57 UTC, Fabian Affolter 		no flags Details
View All

Description Fabian Affolter 2010-05-22 14:57:45 UTC 
abrt 1.0.9 detected a crash.

architecture: x86_64
Attached file: backtrace
cmdline: gnome-system-monitor
comment: Sorry I can't say how to reproduce that.  First audacious crashed then gnome-system-monitor. I think that this crash will never happen again but for the record I add it as a Bugzilla entry.
component: gnome-system-monitor
crash_function: raise
executable: /usr/bin/gnome-system-monitor
global_uuid: cd689027d1a7c8e82a7042cc1cc1e9d14f83d48f
kernel: 2.6.32.11-99.fc12.x86_64
package: gnome-system-monitor-2.28.0-3.fc12
rating: 4
reason: Process /usr/bin/gnome-system-monitor was killed by signal 6 (SIGABRT)
release: Fedora release 12 (Constantine)

How to reproduce
-----
1. Unknown
2.
3.
Comment 1 Fabian Affolter 2010-05-22 14:57:47 UTC 
Created attachment 415869 [details]
File: backtrace
Comment 2 Karel Klíč 2010-05-25 09:22:50 UTC 

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 586075 ***
Comment 3 Karel Klíč 2010-05-25 09:22:50 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 #586075.

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