Your message dated Wed, 20 May 2026 19:07:06 +0200
with message-id <[email protected]>
and subject line Closing as stale/unreproducible
has caused the Debian Bug report #575057,
regarding screen -x occasionally hangs when attaching
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact [email protected]
immediately.)


-- 
575057: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=575057
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact [email protected] with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: screen
Version: 4.0.3-11+lenny1
Severity: normal


sometimes when using "screen -x" to re-attach to an existing session, 
the process will appear to hang and never fully attach.  this might 
happen with "screen -r" as well, but I generally only use -x and
probably as a result have only seen the bug that way.

after a "screen -x" process has hung while attempting an attach, opening 
another terminal and trying another "screen -x" appears to work fine and 
does sucessfully attach to the session.  but the hung process remains hung.

I don't think this is releated to #326571 because I have not been attaching
from within sessions when the hang has occured.

performing an strace on the hung process reveals this:

linear:/# strace -p18362
Process 18362 attached - interrupt to quit
pause()                                 = ? ERESTARTNOHAND (To be restarted)
--- SIGALRM (Alarm clock) @ 0 (0) ---
sigreturn()                             = ? (mask now [])
alarm(0)                                = 0
kill(2847, SIG_0)                       = 0
rt_sigaction(SIGALRM, {0x806ea90, [], 0}, {0x806ea90, [], 0}, 8) = 0
alarm(15)                               = 0
pause()                                 = ? ERESTARTNOHAND (To be restarted)
--- SIGALRM (Alarm clock) @ 0 (0) ---
sigreturn()                             = ? (mask now [])
alarm(0)                                = 0
kill(2847, SIG_0)                       = 0
rt_sigaction(SIGALRM, {0x806ea90, [], 0}, {0x806ea90, [], 0}, 8) = 0
alarm(15)                               = 0
pause()                                 = ? ERESTARTNOHAND (To be restarted)
--- SIGALRM (Alarm clock) @ 0 (0) ---
sigreturn()                             = ? (mask now [])
alarm(0)                                = 0
kill(2847, SIG_0)                       = 0
rt_sigaction(SIGALRM, {0x806ea90, [], 0}, {0x806ea90, [], 0}, 8) = 0
alarm(15)                               = 0
pause()                                 = ? ERESTARTNOHAND (To be restarted)
--- SIGALRM (Alarm clock) @ 0 (0) ---
sigreturn()                             = ? (mask now [])
alarm(0)                                = 0
kill(2847, SIG_0)                       = 0
rt_sigaction(SIGALRM, {0x806ea90, [], 0}, {0x806ea90, [], 0}, 8) = 0
alarm(15)                               = 0
pause(^C <unfinished ...>
Process 18362 detached   


-- System Information:
Debian Release: 5.0.4
  APT prefers stable
  APT policy: (500, 'stable')
Architecture: i386 (i686)

Kernel: Linux 2.6.26-2-686 (SMP w/1 CPU core)
Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=C (charmap=ANSI_X3.4-1968)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash

Versions of packages screen depends on:
ii  libc6                     2.7-18lenny2   GNU C Library: Shared libraries
ii  libncursesw5              5.7+20081213-1 shared libraries for terminal hand
ii  libpam0g                  1.0.1-5+lenny1 Pluggable Authentication Modules l

screen recommends no packages.

screen suggests no packages.

-- no debconf information



--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
tags 575057 + moreinfo unreproducible
thanks

Hi,

This bug has been open for over 10 years, with no further discussion or followup.

I haven't been observed this on any modern version of screen.

Closing as stale/unreproducible.

Cheers,
Peter Dey

--- End Message ---

Reply via email to