Re: Bug#837606: general: system freeze

Hi Abou Al Montacir There some other tests you can run just comment appropriate ones out and run again. During Segmentation fault the program gets core dumped and won't continue. If you have an older kernel it is possible that uninitialized condition variables or mutices can cause it. How ever,

Re: Bug#837606: general: system freeze

Lars Wirzenius schreef op 14-09-2016 12:15: We do care about our users. However, due to the realities of volunteer projects, we need users to help us help them. Reporting a bug that "system freezes" isn't a problem that has an obvious solution: even assuming that we understand what "system

Re: Bug#837606: general: system freeze

]] The Wanderer > I suspect that, from his perspective, closing the bug report _makes_ > that report "disappear with no response" - or, at least, that it makes > it do so to a greater extent than leaving it open with no answer would > do. Closing bugs don't make them disappear, we're not

Re: Bug#837606: general: system freeze

On 2016-09-15 at 21:26, Wookey wrote: > On 2016-09-15 18:04 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > >> Debian is delightfully different. We care about market share of >> *volunteers*, but we don't have to care (and indeed, I personally >> don't care at all) about market share of *customers*. > > Well

Re: Bug#837606: general: system freeze

On 2016-09-15 18:04 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > Debian is delightfully different. We care about market share of > *volunteers*, but we don't have to care (and indeed, I personally don't > care at all) about market share of *customers*. Well put, but I reckon a lot of us would be happier if you

Re: Bug#837606: general: system freeze

The Wanderer writes: > On 2016-09-15 at 16:17, gregor herrmann wrote: >> Debian can't lose customers because we have no customers because we're >> not selling anything. > This is a terminology difference. It isn't for me. For me, this is a very foundational and freeing

Re: Bug#837606: general: system freeze

On 2016-09-15 at 16:17, gregor herrmann wrote: > On Thu, 15 Sep 2016 16:58:03 +0200, Abou Al Montacir wrote: >> We don't care to loose customers because of an issue faced by >> someone, > > Debian can't lose customers because we have no customers because > we're not selling anything. This is

Re: Bug#837606: general: system freeze

On Thu, 15 Sep 2016 16:58:03 +0200, Abou Al Montacir wrote: > In my case, when I get such a report for my package, I start instructing the > user to gather more information. Right, me too. But "general" is not a package but a catchall category where mails get distributed to thousands of

Re: Bug#837606: general: system freeze

The Wanderer writes: > I suspect that he feels that closing a bug report without having first > tried to address it equals pretending that the problem reported in the > bug report does not exist, and thus, represents an attempt to hide the > fact that the problem does

Re: Bug#837606: general: system freeze

Thanks The Wanderer, You explained it better that I can ever do! It is a perception problem at the first plane. --  Cheers, Abou Al Montacir On Thu, 2016-09-15 at 13:39 -0400, The Wanderer wrote: > On 2016-09-15 at 13:24, Russ Allbery wrote: > > > > > > Abou Al Montacir

Re: Bug#837606: general: system freeze

On 2016-09-15 at 13:24, Russ Allbery wrote: > Abou Al Montacir writes: > >> Does improve distribution means hiding issues? I don't think it >> is. > > You keep using this term, but I have no idea what you mean by it. > What information do you feel like we're hiding? I

Re: Bug#837606: general: system freeze

Abou Al Montacir writes: > Does improve distribution means hiding issues? I don't think it is. You keep using this term, but I have no idea what you mean by it. What information do you feel like we're hiding? Maybe you feel like closing a bug is always wrong unless the

Re: Bug#837606: general: system freeze

On Wed, 2016-09-14 at 12:51 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > > Abou Al Montacir writes: > > > Because you think people will not be frustrated if they experience a bug > > and that we prevent them to raise bugs? Hiding reality is always > > bad?. Look at the original reporter

Re: Bug#837606: general: system freeze

Hi Joël, On Wed, 2016-09-14 at 15:38 +0200, Joël Krähemann wrote: > Hi > > reproducing the critical parts in a unit test would be helpful > > Something like in the attachment. > > install dependencies: > > apt-get install libcunit1-dev > > Compile with > > gcc -g -o mutex_fail_test

Re: Bug#837606: general: system freeze

On 2016-09-15 10:10:23 +0200, Abou Al Montacir wrote: > That is very similar to the issue I'm experiencing. However I can > reproduce this 100% when opening a page on linkedIn using epiphany > browser. Then I think that you should give strace information + system logs. -- Vincent Lefèvre

Re: Bug#837606: general: system freeze

Hi Adam, On Thu, 2016-09-15 at 04:07 +0200, Adam Borowski wrote: > Even quite experienced people may have a hard time investigating a "system > > freeze". > > > > It just happens that I had two today; the system was working reliably before > > with no unexplained crashes[1] at least in

Re: Bug#837606: general: system freeze

On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 01:15:47PM +0300, Lars Wirzenius wrote: > On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 11:23:56AM +0200, Abou Al Montacir wrote: > > Because you think people will not be frustrated if they experience a bug and > > that we prevent them to raise bugs? Hiding reality is always bad?. Look at > >

Re: Bug#837606: general: system freeze

On Wed, 2016-09-14 at 11:21 +0200, Abou Al Montacir wrote: > Hi Holger, > > On Tue, 2016-09-13 at 17:08 +, Holger Levsen wrote: > > > > On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 04:15:54PM +0200, Abou Al Montacir wrote: > > > > > > Control: reopen -1 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sorry, I don't think that

Re: Bug#837606: general: system freeze

Abou Al Montacir writes: > We are here facing a bug that appears only on some devices. The issue is > tricky and the user does not have the skills to debug. The duty of the > project is to help him investigating the right way so that the bug get > solved. No, it's not.

Re: Bug#837606: general: system freeze

Abou Al Montacir writes: > Because you think people will not be frustrated if they experience a bug > and that we prevent them to raise bugs? Hiding reality is always > bad?. Look at the original reporter last message. He seems quite > disappointed by the project

Re: Bug#837606: general: system freeze

[Please do not CC me, I am subscribed. You seem to have a habit of CC'ing the individuals to whose messages you are responding. This is contrary to this list's documented policy.] * Abou Al Montacir [160914 05:31]: > The duty of the project is to > help him

Re: Bug#837606: general: system freeze

On 2016-09-14, Joël Krähemann wrote: > reproducing the critical parts in a unit test would be helpful > > Something like in the attachment. > > install dependencies: > > apt-get install libcunit1-dev > > Compile with > > gcc -g -o mutex_fail_test mutex_fail_test.c

Re: Bug#837606: general: system freeze

Hi reproducing the critical parts in a unit test would be helpful Something like in the attachment. install dependencies: apt-get install libcunit1-dev Compile with gcc -g -o mutex_fail_test mutex_fail_test.c `pkg-config --cflags --libs cunit` -pthread launch ./mutex_fail_test Bests,

Re: Bug#837606: general: system freeze

On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 11:23:56AM +0200, Abou Al Montacir wrote: > Because you think people will not be frustrated if they experience a bug and > that we prevent them to raise bugs? Hiding reality is always bad?. Look at the > original reporter last message. He seems quite disappointed by the

Re: Bug#837606: general: system freeze

On Tue, 2016-09-13 at 15:51 -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: > Russ Allbery wrote: > > Should we just disable the general pseudo-package?  Is it serving a > > sufficient useful purpose to warrant the constant (if somewhat slow) > > stream of misdirected bug reports? > > I don't think so, no.  Seems

Re: Bug#837606: general: system freeze

On Tue, 2016-09-13 at 14:27 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > > Holger Levsen writes: > > > it seems you haven't realized two things: > > - the "general" pseudo package is mostly useless > > - when Ben closed this bug he gave a pointer to another bug which > >   basically is

Re: Bug#837606: general: system freeze

Hi Holger, On Tue, 2016-09-13 at 17:08 +, Holger Levsen wrote: > On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 04:15:54PM +0200, Abou Al Montacir wrote: > > Control: reopen -1 > > > > Sorry, I don't think that the best way to solve this issue is to close > > > > the bug. > > it seems you haven't realized two

Re: Bug#837606: general: system freeze

Russ Allbery wrote: > Should we just disable the general pseudo-package? Is it serving a > sufficient useful purpose to warrant the constant (if somewhat slow) > stream of misdirected bug reports? I don't think so, no. Seems better for reportbug in the "I don't know where the bug is" case to

Re: Bug#837606: general: system freeze

On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 02:27:58PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > Should we just disable the general pseudo-package? Is it serving a > sufficient useful purpose to warrant the constant (if somewhat slow) > stream of misdirected bug reports? no, I think "general" is still useful, there are some

Re: Bug#837606: general: system freeze

Holger Levsen writes: > it seems you haven't realized two things: > - the "general" pseudo package is mostly useless > - when Ben closed this bug he gave a pointer to another bug which > basically is the same issue *and* a much better bug report. You > completly failed

Re: Bug#837606: general: system freeze

On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 04:15:54PM +0200, Abou Al Montacir wrote: > Control: reopen -1 > Sorry, I don't think that the best way to solve this issue is to close the > bug. it seems you haven't realized two things: - the "general" pseudo package is mostly useless - when Ben closed this bug he gave