Package: manedit
Version: 0.6.1-2
Severity: grave
Justification: renders package unusable
I experienced this strange situation on my AMD64 machine:
Manedit runs nice without ~/.maneditrc file (i.e. the first time
the application is used), but, later, when a RC file has been generated:
Hello,
I can't reproduce this problem on my i386 box. But according to the
report, the bug can only be seen on an amd64. Having a look at the
buildd log[1] reveals that gcc complains a log about "cast to pointer
from integer of different size".
Having a look at the source code shows that it ind
Date: Sat, 2 Sep 2006 23:26:48 +0200
Thomas Girard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello,
Hello Thomas,
>
> I can't reproduce this problem on my i386 box. But according to the
> report, the bug can only be seen on an amd64. Having a look at the
> buildd log[1] reveals that gcc complains a log ab
Hi again,
On Sun, Sep 03, 2006 at 01:12:06AM +0200, Nacho Barrientos Arias wrote:
> Done. I just applied the attached patch to a clean 0.6.1-2 source tree
> and compiled it in a clean SID chroot. It crashes in the same way.
>
> --- 8< ---
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]: ~ $ rm .maneditrc
> [EMAIL PRO
Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2006 01:29:12 +0200
Thomas Girard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi again,
>
> On Sun, Sep 03, 2006 at 01:12:06AM +0200, Nacho Barrientos Arias wrote:
> > Done. I just applied the attached patch to a clean 0.6.1-2 source tree
> > and compiled it in a clean SID chroot. It crashes in
On Sun, Sep 03, 2006 at 01:39:52AM +0200, Nacho Barrientos Arias wrote:
> > Can you please recompile this patched version with debug info (setting
> > the DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS environment variable to "noopt,nostrip" should
> > do) then send here the output of "bt full" in gdb?
>
> Running as suggeste
Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2006 01:44:04 +0200
Thomas Girard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
--- 8< ---
>
> Well, somehow that did not work. Can you please retry with
> /manedit-0.6.1/manedit/manedit?
>
> Thomas
Come on!
Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
0x2b9f5159a3f0 in gtk_paint_h
Hi,
On Sun, Sep 03, 2006 at 01:54:18AM +0200, Nacho Barrientos Arias wrote:
> Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
> 0x2b9f5159a3f0 in gtk_paint_hline () from /usr/lib/libgtk-1.2.so.0
> (gdb) bt full
> #0 0x2b9f5159a3f0 in gtk_paint_hline ()
> from /usr/lib/libgtk-1.2.so.0
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2006 20:02:44 +0200
Thomas Girard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sun, Sep 03, 2006 at 01:54:18AM +0200, Nacho Barrientos Arias wrote:
> > Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
> > 0x2b9f5159a3f0 in gtk_paint_hline () from /usr/lib/libgtk-1.2.so.0
> > (
On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 09:06:18PM +0200, Nacho Barrientos Arias wrote:
> #0 0x2b78e4d943f0 in gtk_style_init (style=0x826780, colormap=0x6dd870,
> depth=)
> at gtkstyle.c:657
> gc_values = {foreground = {pixel = 7150384, red = 0, green = 0, blue
> = 0}, background = {pixel = 251
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2006 01:16:59 +0200
Thomas Girard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 09:06:18PM +0200, Nacho Barrientos Arias wrote:
> > #0 0x2b78e4d943f0 in gtk_style_init (style=0x826780,
> > colormap=0x6dd870, depth=)
> > at gtkstyle.c:657
> > gc_values = {f
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 23:43:21 +0200
Thomas Girard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Okay, thanks.
You are welcome.
--- snip ---
>
> On the binary built with debugging symbols, that would give something
> like:
>
> (gdb) b main.c:398
> Breakpoint 1 at ...: file main.c, line 398.
> (gdb) r
>
Hi Nacho,
On Wed, Sep 06, 2006 at 10:56:03AM +0200, Nacho Barrientos Arias wrote:
> Yes, style->font is NULL.
Okay, thanks.
I don't understand why it gets NULL. From what I've seen, the culprit
style is stored in the field edit_text_standard. It is first set in
main.c:398, then in prefop.c:169
Selon Nacho Barrientos Arias <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> (gdb) print style_ptr->font
> $2 = (GdkFont *) 0x7083d0
>
> > (gdb) next
> > (gdb) print style_ptr->font
> >
>
> Yes,
>
> (gdb) next
> 170 style_ptr = styles_list->edit_text_background;
> (gdb) print style_ptr->font
> $3 = (Gdk
Nacho> Congratulations, i applied it to a clean source tree and it works for
Nacho> me. Now, i can execute Manedit with an existing RC file.
Great! So the previous patch manedit.diff is not needed? I believe drag and
drop could crash without it, but this is not related to this bug.
Me> Heck. He
tags 384585 + patch
thanks
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 10:05:21 +0200
Thomas Girard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Great, thanks. Could you please try the attached patch? It tries to
> avoid the problem you're facing.
Congratulations, i applied it to a clean source tree and it works for
me. Now, i ca
Selon Thomas Girard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Great, thanks. Could you please try the attached patch? It tries to
> avoid the problem you're facing.
Heck. Here's the patch.--- prefop.c- 2006-09-13 07:54:20.0 +
+++ prefop.c 2006-09-13 07:58:01.0 +
@@ -156,10 +156,12 @@
*/
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 10:35:24 +0200
Thomas Girard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Great! So the previous patch manedit.diff is not needed? I believe drag and
> drop could crash without it, but this is not related to this bug.
It seems to work without this patch at the moment, but i only tested it
18 matches
Mail list logo
