On mar, 2008-05-27 at 16:08 +0200, Yves-Alexis Perez wrote: > Basically, it's useless. > > > I don't know how thunar manages to run on "exotic" hardware (works > fine on > i386, x86_64, ppc, sparc64, but I never tested on other stuff). > Anyway, could > you try a more recent version using backports.org (if built) and > report back?
Do you have any news on this? Did you try a more recent version? Did you manage to get an usable backtrace? -- Yves-Alexis
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
