Bug#758619: more complete backtrace

2014-09-22 Thread Simon McVittie
On 21/09/14 22:47, Sandro Tosi wrote: On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 10:38 AM, Simon McVittie s...@debian.org wrote: +gtk.set_interactive (0) gtk.gdk.threads_init () sadly this patch didnt fix the problem, and I can replicate it in a clean sid chroot. do you have any other suggestions? The next

Bug#758619: more complete backtrace

2014-09-21 Thread Sandro Tosi
Hello Simon, On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 10:38 AM, Simon McVittie s...@debian.org wrote: --- gtk2_ui.py.orig 2014-08-21 09:28:45.375375786 + +++ gtk2_ui.py 2014-08-21 09:29:02.843495121 + @@ -35,6 +35,7 @@ except: has_spell = False +gtk.set_interactive (0)

Bug#758619: more complete backtrace

2014-08-21 Thread Simon McVittie
forwarded 758619 https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=735141 found 758619 glib2.0/2.41.2-1 notfound 758619 glib2.0/2.40.0-4 thanks On 20/08/14 22:50, Eric Valette wrote: Because I use the glib/gtk from experimental I guess. Thanks, yes, it's that. Specifically, this change:

Bug#758619: more complete backtrace

2014-08-21 Thread Eric Valette
On 08/21/2014 10:26 AM, Simon McVittie wrote: In particular, the abort on incorrect locking is new; the original plan seems to have been for it to be runtime-optional. I've sent this upstream to ask whether runtime-optional is feasible. Well instead of correcting the symptom, I would

Bug#758619: more complete backtrace

2014-08-21 Thread Eric Valette
On 08/21/2014 10:37 AM, Eric Valette wrote: Searching for the bug, I saw that, in the past, the very same undefined behavior caused crash instead of and assert. http://debian.2.n7.nabble.com/Bug-671785-segfaults-when-running-reportbug-td548240.html meaning the bug is not new and was

Bug#758619: more complete backtrace

2014-08-21 Thread Simon McVittie
# the real bug is #671785 but it's easy to avoid it in reportbug reassign 758619 reportbug tags 758619 + patch thanks On 21/08/14 09:37, Eric Valette wrote: Well instead of correcting the symptom, I would prefer to correct the bug itself. If locking mecahnism is hazardous, then it eman

Processed: Re: Bug#758619: more complete backtrace

2014-08-21 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: # the real bug is #671785 but it's easy to avoid it in reportbug reassign 758619 reportbug Bug #758619 [libglib2.0-0] reportbug fails with Attempt to unlock mutex that was not locked Bug reassigned from package 'libglib2.0-0' to 'reportbug'.

Bug#758619: more complete backtrace

2014-08-21 Thread Eric Valette
--- gtk2_ui.py.orig 2014-08-21 09:28:45.375375786 + +++ gtk2_ui.py2014-08-21 09:29:02.843495121 + @@ -35,6 +35,7 @@ except: has_spell = False +gtk.set_interactive (0) gtk.gdk.threads_init () import sys I confirm this also fixes the bug for me. Thanks for

Bug#758619: more complete backtrace

2014-08-20 Thread VALETTE Eric OLNC/OLPS
gdb --args python /usr/bin/reportbug -b --no-check-available libpulse0 GNU gdb (Debian 7.7.1+dfsg-3) 7.7.1 Copyright (C) 2014 Free Software Foundation, Inc. License GPLv3+: GNU GPL version 3 or later http://gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html This is free software: you are free to change and redistribute

Bug#758619: more complete backtrace

2014-08-20 Thread Simon McVittie
Did you upgrade a package recently that could have triggered this, i.e. related to Python, GLib, Gtk 2 or reportbug? I would be interested to know why this is new. Some analysis below. I think this is probably a pygtk bug, but there is a workaround that reportbug could use. On 20/08/14 12:15,

Bug#758619: more complete backtrace

2014-08-20 Thread Eric Valette
On 20/08/2014 22:46, Simon McVittie wrote: Did you upgrade a package recently that could have triggered this, i.e. related to Python, GLib, Gtk 2 or reportbug? I would be interested to know why this is new. Because I use the glib/gtk from experimental I guess. And you could have noticed it by