Bug#660487: xulrunner-dev: instant segfault in startup (related to jemalloc)
On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 7:09 AM, Mike Hommey wrote: > On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 06:54:54AM +, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote: >> On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 6:46 AM, Mike Hommey wrote: >> >> >> but that's not the problem: the problem is generically to *all* -dev >> >> libraries. hmm... let me raise this somewhere on a debian list, but >> >> essentially what i need to do is to create a package >> >> python-hulahop-that-compiles-and-links-to-xulrunner-9 >> > >> > And that would have absolutely no usefulness in debian >> >> beh? :) >> >> >> why? >> >> >> >> because of "pkg-config --variable=sdkdir libxul". >> >> >> >> that line says it all: where does the libxul .pc file come from? >> >> from the -dev package. what that *should* be is this: >> >> >> >> pkg-config --exact-version 9.0 --variable=sdkdir libxul >> > >> > like pkg-config --variable=sdkdir libxul = 9.0 ? >> > tough that would break with 9.0.1. >> >> sorry i meant --exact-version=9.0.1 >> >> >> but... but... that doesn't work either, does it, because _if_ >> >> xulrunner-dev is installed and it's xulrunner-10.0-dev, then we're >> >> fd, because that file libxul.pc is exclusively-named. >> >> >> >> >> >> > The good news for you is that >> >> > xulrunner 10 will stay there for a while and /might/ be what is released >> >> > in wheezy. >> >> >> >> argh - actually that's _bad_ news, for exactly the reasons above. >> >> not only can it not be compiled (against xulrunner-9) but also it's >> >> xulrunner-10 which is severely borked. >> >> >> >> hmm... i wonder if xulrunner 11 is similarly borked? >> > >> > pyxpcom doesn't build with xulrunner 11. >> >> it doesn't? argh! the fun continues :) > > Note that it doesn't build out of the box with xulrunner 10. I had to > fix it in debian, and the fixes are probably not enough. yeah i saw that. because pyxpcom is maintained "externally", that big batch of changes in 10.0.1 from PRBool to bool is just one example that's causing problems: i had to similarly patch hulahop to substitute PRBool for bool. l. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#660487: xulrunner-dev: instant segfault in startup (related to jemalloc)
On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 06:54:54AM +, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote: > On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 6:46 AM, Mike Hommey wrote: > > >> but that's not the problem: the problem is generically to *all* -dev > >> libraries. hmm... let me raise this somewhere on a debian list, but > >> essentially what i need to do is to create a package > >> python-hulahop-that-compiles-and-links-to-xulrunner-9 > > > > And that would have absolutely no usefulness in debian > > beh? :) > > >> why? > >> > >> because of "pkg-config --variable=sdkdir libxul". > >> > >> that line says it all: where does the libxul .pc file come from? > >> from the -dev package. what that *should* be is this: > >> > >> pkg-config --exact-version 9.0 --variable=sdkdir libxul > > > > like pkg-config --variable=sdkdir libxul = 9.0 ? > > tough that would break with 9.0.1. > > sorry i meant --exact-version=9.0.1 > > >> but... but... that doesn't work either, does it, because _if_ > >> xulrunner-dev is installed and it's xulrunner-10.0-dev, then we're > >> fd, because that file libxul.pc is exclusively-named. > >> > >> > >> > The good news for you is that > >> > xulrunner 10 will stay there for a while and /might/ be what is released > >> > in wheezy. > >> > >> argh - actually that's _bad_ news, for exactly the reasons above. > >> not only can it not be compiled (against xulrunner-9) but also it's > >> xulrunner-10 which is severely borked. > >> > >> hmm... i wonder if xulrunner 11 is similarly borked? > > > > pyxpcom doesn't build with xulrunner 11. > > it doesn't? argh! the fun continues :) Note that it doesn't build out of the box with xulrunner 10. I had to fix it in debian, and the fixes are probably not enough. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#660487: xulrunner-dev: instant segfault in startup (related to jemalloc)
On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 6:46 AM, Mike Hommey wrote: >> but that's not the problem: the problem is generically to *all* -dev >> libraries. hmm... let me raise this somewhere on a debian list, but >> essentially what i need to do is to create a package >> python-hulahop-that-compiles-and-links-to-xulrunner-9 > > And that would have absolutely no usefulness in debian beh? :) >> why? >> >> because of "pkg-config --variable=sdkdir libxul". >> >> that line says it all: where does the libxul .pc file come from? >> from the -dev package. what that *should* be is this: >> >> pkg-config --exact-version 9.0 --variable=sdkdir libxul > > like pkg-config --variable=sdkdir libxul = 9.0 ? > tough that would break with 9.0.1. sorry i meant --exact-version=9.0.1 >> but... but... that doesn't work either, does it, because _if_ >> xulrunner-dev is installed and it's xulrunner-10.0-dev, then we're >> fd, because that file libxul.pc is exclusively-named. >> >> >> > The good news for you is that >> > xulrunner 10 will stay there for a while and /might/ be what is released >> > in wheezy. >> >> argh - actually that's _bad_ news, for exactly the reasons above. >> not only can it not be compiled (against xulrunner-9) but also it's >> xulrunner-10 which is severely borked. >> >> hmm... i wonder if xulrunner 11 is similarly borked? > > pyxpcom doesn't build with xulrunner 11. it doesn't? argh! the fun continues :) ok. so that means waiting for todd to sort it out, or take a look at that as _well_. *sigh*. so until then, basically, patches have to be tracked down that stabilise xulrunner 10 (in order to do a xulrunner-10.0.2-NN or whatever). what i find odd is that the memory corruption which results in the segfault on FocusWindow are triggered by, it looks like, macosx and python-hulahop, but *not* firefox (under debian/linux amd64). that's not to say that something *else* isn't getting corrupted... l. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#660487: xulrunner-dev: instant segfault in startup (related to jemalloc)
On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 01:17:49AM +, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote: > On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 9:37 PM, Mike Hommey wrote: > > On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 07:51:30PM +, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton > > wrote: > >> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=678977#c46 > >> > >> mike hi, it looks like this has been solved, and i leave it in your > >> capable hands to sort out xulrunner - the question remaining is: what > >> to do now about hulahop? i've been asked to help get hulahop into a > >> working state, but xulrunner 10 is so badly borked that that's > >> impossible. > > > > Without specifics, there's not much I can do. > > that bugreport (#678977) contains the patches and various > compile-time arguments that are needed to fix that _one_ bug. > > the other one is something that's still under investigation, which > again looks to me to be memory corruption (a function which returns > pointers to a list of windows returns a pointer with a value of > 0x10: it's too coincidental a value to be correct). > > > >> that would be fine, if it wasn't for the fact that > >> xulrunner-dev has now overwritten and replaced xulrunner-9-dev, making > >> it impossible to now compile up python-hulahop. > > > > We can't indefinitely keep multiple versions of xulrunner in the > > archive We don't scale that much. > > actually, you already have four! xulrunner 1.9.1, 1.9.2, 9.0 and 10.0.2 1.9.1 is in lenny (oldstable), and is not supported anymore. 1.9.2 is in squeeze (stable) 9.0 happens to be in testing 10.0 is in unstable, and will replace 9.0 whenever possible. > but that's not the problem: the problem is generically to *all* -dev > libraries. hmm... let me raise this somewhere on a debian list, but > essentially what i need to do is to create a package > python-hulahop-that-compiles-and-links-to-xulrunner-9 And that would have absolutely no usefulness in debian > why? > > because of "pkg-config --variable=sdkdir libxul". > > that line says it all: where does the libxul .pc file come from? > from the -dev package. what that *should* be is this: > > pkg-config --exact-version 9.0 --variable=sdkdir libxul like pkg-config --variable=sdkdir libxul = 9.0 ? tough that would break with 9.0.1. > but... but... that doesn't work either, does it, because _if_ > xulrunner-dev is installed and it's xulrunner-10.0-dev, then we're > fd, because that file libxul.pc is exclusively-named. > > > > The good news for you is that > > xulrunner 10 will stay there for a while and /might/ be what is released > > in wheezy. > > argh - actually that's _bad_ news, for exactly the reasons above. > not only can it not be compiled (against xulrunner-9) but also it's > xulrunner-10 which is severely borked. > > hmm... i wonder if xulrunner 11 is similarly borked? pyxpcom doesn't build with xulrunner 11. Mike -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#660487: xulrunner-dev: instant segfault in startup (related to jemalloc)
On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 1:17 AM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote: >> We can't indefinitely keep multiple versions of xulrunner in the >> archive We don't scale that much. > > actually, you already have four! xulrunner 1.9.1, 1.9.2, 9.0 and 10.0.2 apologies - i just told off someone for using personal pronouns, but the use of "we" caught me out :) i should have said "actually there are four". apologies. l. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#660487: xulrunner-dev: instant segfault in startup (related to jemalloc)
On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 9:37 PM, Mike Hommey wrote: > On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 07:51:30PM +, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote: >> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=678977#c46 >> >> mike hi, it looks like this has been solved, and i leave it in your >> capable hands to sort out xulrunner - the question remaining is: what >> to do now about hulahop? i've been asked to help get hulahop into a >> working state, but xulrunner 10 is so badly borked that that's >> impossible. > > Without specifics, there's not much I can do. that bugreport (#678977) contains the patches and various compile-time arguments that are needed to fix that _one_ bug. the other one is something that's still under investigation, which again looks to me to be memory corruption (a function which returns pointers to a list of windows returns a pointer with a value of 0x10: it's too coincidental a value to be correct). >> that would be fine, if it wasn't for the fact that >> xulrunner-dev has now overwritten and replaced xulrunner-9-dev, making >> it impossible to now compile up python-hulahop. > > We can't indefinitely keep multiple versions of xulrunner in the > archive We don't scale that much. actually, you already have four! xulrunner 1.9.1, 1.9.2, 9.0 and 10.0.2 but that's not the problem: the problem is generically to *all* -dev libraries. hmm... let me raise this somewhere on a debian list, but essentially what i need to do is to create a package python-hulahop-that-compiles-and-links-to-xulrunner-9 why? because of "pkg-config --variable=sdkdir libxul". that line says it all: where does the libxul .pc file come from? from the -dev package. what that *should* be is this: pkg-config --exact-version 9.0 --variable=sdkdir libxul but... but... that doesn't work either, does it, because _if_ xulrunner-dev is installed and it's xulrunner-10.0-dev, then we're fd, because that file libxul.pc is exclusively-named. > The good news for you is that > xulrunner 10 will stay there for a while and /might/ be what is released > in wheezy. argh - actually that's _bad_ news, for exactly the reasons above. not only can it not be compiled (against xulrunner-9) but also it's xulrunner-10 which is severely borked. hmm... i wonder if xulrunner 11 is similarly borked? i'll test that out. l. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#660487: xulrunner-dev: instant segfault in startup (related to jemalloc)
On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 07:51:30PM +, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote: > https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=678977#c46 > > mike hi, it looks like this has been solved, and i leave it in your > capable hands to sort out xulrunner - the question remaining is: what > to do now about hulahop? i've been asked to help get hulahop into a > working state, but xulrunner 10 is so badly borked that that's > impossible. Without specifics, there's not much I can do. > that would be fine, if it wasn't for the fact that > xulrunner-dev has now overwritten and replaced xulrunner-9-dev, making > it impossible to now compile up python-hulahop. We can't indefinitely keep multiple versions of xulrunner in the archive. We don't scale that much. The good news for you is that xulrunner 10 will stay there for a while and /might/ be what is released in wheezy. Anyways, as a general rule of thumb, if you're not following upstream closely and in advance, hulahop is doomed to die. Mike -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#660487: xulrunner-dev: instant segfault in startup (related to jemalloc)
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=678977#c46 mike hi, it looks like this has been solved, and i leave it in your capable hands to sort out xulrunner - the question remaining is: what to do now about hulahop? i've been asked to help get hulahop into a working state, but xulrunner 10 is so badly borked that that's impossible. that would be fine, if it wasn't for the fact that xulrunner-dev has now overwritten and replaced xulrunner-9-dev, making it impossible to now compile up python-hulahop. l. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#660487: xulrunner-dev: instant segfault in startup (related to jemalloc)
On 2/19/12, Mike Hommey wrote: > On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 03:29:03PM +, lkcl wrote: >> Package: xulrunner-dev >> Version: 10.0.1-1 >> Severity: normal >> >> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=728500 >> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=660178 >> >> there's a segfault been noted when using hulahop which was not present >> in version 9 of xulrunner. the mozilla team kindly advised to stop >> using jemalloc (--disable-jemalloc) whilst the issue was being >> investigated but that may not be the root cause of the problem. > > I guess this is https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=720682 don't know - i've mentioned it in there so that someone can make a decision to either investigate further or mark it as a duplicate. l. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#660487: xulrunner-dev: instant segfault in startup (related to jemalloc)
On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 03:29:03PM +, lkcl wrote: > Package: xulrunner-dev > Version: 10.0.1-1 > Severity: normal > > https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=728500 > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=660178 > > there's a segfault been noted when using hulahop which was not present > in version 9 of xulrunner. the mozilla team kindly advised to stop > using jemalloc (--disable-jemalloc) whilst the issue was being > investigated but that may not be the root cause of the problem. I guess this is https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=720682 Mike -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#660487: xulrunner-dev: instant segfault in startup (related to jemalloc)
Package: xulrunner-dev Version: 10.0.1-1 Severity: normal https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=728500 http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=660178 there's a segfault been noted when using hulahop which was not present in version 9 of xulrunner. the mozilla team kindly advised to stop using jemalloc (--disable-jemalloc) whilst the issue was being investigated but that may not be the root cause of the problem. this and one other bugreport (#660482) tend to suggest that xulrunner 10 simply isn't ready for public use yet. -- System Information: Debian Release: squeeze/sid APT prefers oldstable APT policy: (500, 'oldstable'), (500, 'unstable'), (500, 'testing'), (500, 'stable'), (1, 'experimental') Architecture: amd64 (x86_64) Kernel: Linux 2.6.39-2-amd64 (SMP w/2 CPU cores) Locale: LANG=en_GB.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_GB.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash Versions of packages xulrunner-dev depends on: ii libc62.13-21 Embedded GNU C Library: Shared lib ii libffi5 3.0.9-2 Foreign Function Interface library ii libgcc1 1:4.6.1-4 GCC support library ii libmozjs-dev 10.0.1-1Development files for the Mozilla ii libnspr4-0d 4.8.9-1 NetScape Portable Runtime Library ii libnspr4-dev 4.8.9-1 Development files for the NetScape ii libnss3-dev 3.13.1.with.ckbi.1.88-1 Development files for the Network ii libstdc++6 4.6.1-4 GNU Standard C++ Library v3 ii xulrunner-10.0 10.0.1-1XUL + XPCOM application runner xulrunner-dev recommends no packages. xulrunner-dev suggests no packages. -- no debconf information -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
