Bug 647874 - [abrt] evolution-2.32.0-2.fc14: Process /usr/bin/evolution was killed by signal 11 (SIGSEGV)
Summary: [abrt] evolution-2.32.0-2.fc14: Process /usr/bin/evolution was killed by sign...
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED NEXTRELEASE
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: evolution
Version: 14
Hardware: x86_64
OS: Linux
low
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Matthew Barnes
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard: abrt_hash:0bf8a94af66ee263d84247b6a04...
: 634208 646591 650947 654029 654995 655683 (view as bug list)
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2010-10-29 18:53 UTC by Christian Raschke
Modified: 2010-11-22 11:10 UTC (History)
11 users (show)

Fixed In Version: evolution-data-server-2.32.1
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2010-11-05 10:27:17 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:


Attachments (Terms of Use)
File: backtrace (70.87 KB, text/plain)
2010-10-29 18:53 UTC, Christian Raschke
no flags Details


Links
System ID Private Priority Status Summary Last Updated
GNOME Bugzilla 631290 0 None None None Never

Description Christian Raschke 2010-10-29 18:53:51 UTC
abrt version: 1.1.13
architecture: x86_64
Attached file: backtrace
cmdline: evolution
component: evolution
executable: /usr/bin/evolution
kernel: 2.6.35.6-46.fc14.x86_64
package: evolution-2.32.0-2.fc14
reason: Process /usr/bin/evolution was killed by signal 11 (SIGSEGV)
release: Fedora release 14 (Laughlin)
time: 1288375084
uid: 500

How to reproduce
-----
1. Open Evolution to check emails
2. Delete some unread emails
3. Application closes without providing error message

Comment 1 Christian Raschke 2010-10-29 18:53:53 UTC
Created attachment 456534 [details]
File: backtrace

Comment 2 Sullivan G. Scott, Jr. 2010-11-03 17:15:48 UTC
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.

Comment 3 Milan Crha 2010-11-05 10:27:17 UTC
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

Comment 4 Milan Crha 2010-11-08 09:51:26 UTC
*** Bug 646591 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Comment 5 Milan Crha 2010-11-08 09:52:32 UTC
*** Bug 634208 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Comment 6 Milan Crha 2010-11-09 06:52:29 UTC
*** Bug 650947 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Comment 7 Patrick O'Callaghan 2010-11-16 18:20:37 UTC
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

Comment 8 Milan Crha 2010-11-18 08:17:12 UTC
(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.

Comment 9 Milan Crha 2010-11-18 09:51:43 UTC
*** Bug 654029 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Comment 10 Patrick O'Callaghan 2010-11-18 11:28:10 UTC
(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.

Comment 11 Patrick O'Callaghan 2010-11-18 13:50:09 UTC
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.

Comment 12 Milan Crha 2010-11-22 10:30:31 UTC
*** Bug 654995 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Comment 13 Milan Crha 2010-11-22 11:10:54 UTC
*** Bug 655683 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.