Bug 650175 - [abrt] gvfs-archive-1.6.4-2.fc14: raise: Process /usr/libexec/gvfsd-archive was killed by signal 6 (SIGABRT)
Summary: [abrt] gvfs-archive-1.6.4-2.fc14: raise: Process /usr/libexec/gvfsd-archive w...
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED DUPLICATE of bug 621084
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: gvfs
Version: 14
Hardware: x86_64
OS: Unspecified
low
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Tomáš Bžatek
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard: abrt_hash:b5063f501e415c5efadc02d3b0a...
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2010-11-05 13:32 UTC by eblix08
Modified: 2015-03-03 22:54 UTC (History)
4 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2010-11-09 16:29:04 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:


Attachments (Terms of Use)
File: backtrace (13.27 KB, text/plain)
2010-11-05 13:32 UTC, eblix08
no flags Details

Description eblix08 2010-11-05 13:32:12 UTC
abrt version: 1.1.13
architecture: x86_64
Attached file: backtrace
cmdline: /usr/libexec/gvfsd-archive file=/media/iomega/Virtualization/ISOs/sda.iso
component: gvfs
crash_function: raise
executable: /usr/libexec/gvfsd-archive
kernel: 2.6.35.6-48.fc14.x86_64
package: gvfs-archive-1.6.4-2.fc14
rating: 4
reason: Process /usr/libexec/gvfsd-archive was killed by signal 6 (SIGABRT)
release: Fedora release 14 (Laughlin)
time: 1288961767
uid: 500

How to reproduce
-----
Attempted to backup a MS Windows installation on /dev/sda to a ISO using the following command.
FYI, I booted using a alternate device so /dev/sda was not mounted while performing the backup.

1. dd if=/dev/sda of="/tmp/sda.iso"

The command completed successfully and created a 80GB ISO as expected.

2. Using nautilus I tried to mount the ISO to verify the contents.

I probably shoud has used the following command.
dd if=/dev/sda1 of="/tmp/sda1.iso"

Comment 1 eblix08 2010-11-05 13:32:14 UTC
Created attachment 458078 [details]
File: backtrace

Comment 2 Karel Klíč 2010-11-09 16:29:04 UTC

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 621084 ***

Comment 3 Karel Klíč 2010-11-09 16:29:04 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 #621084.

Sorry for the inconvenience.


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