https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=163468
--- Comment #18 from Michael Weghorn <[email protected]> --- (In reply to Eyal Rozenberg from comment #15) > I would say that there needs to be some "robustification" of the > configuration/configuration-wrapper related code. There must some places > assuming that configuration options/settings can be obtained, when they > cannot. Making code more robust is of course always a good idea. The bigger challenge is probably to decide what to spend the (limited) resources (here in particular developer time) on. > Also, app.cxx line 485 is: > > if (officecfg::Setup::Office::OfficeRestartInProgress::get()) > > I don't know if the first start is considered a restart; or whether there's > some failure in starting LO which triggers a restart. But - I would look at > the code checking for "restart in progress" - maybe that's where we'll find > some invalid assumptions on what's available. Looking into Desktop::Init, I see a call to `InitApplicationServiceManager` a few lines above the ones you mention. As I said, I'm not very familiar with that area of LO code, but my "gut feeling" is that something might go wrong there, and then the call to `officecfg::Setup::Office::OfficeRestartInProgress::get` failing is just a consequence of that. > Anyway, I'm going to switch distributions on that machine now, so it is > unfortunately going away. What might be most useful to get more insights could be to debug + compare what happens in the broken case and a working setup. If the broken setup is going away altogether, that probably makes this less actionable. (In reply to Eyal Rozenberg from comment #17) > Could this possibly be due to a low monitor resolution? i.e. below our > minimum requirements? I won't say "No", but from the backtrace, I tend to think that this is more likely a more low-level issue. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
