Re: [Evolution] Evolution segfault

2022-11-14 Thread Tim McConnell via evolution-list
On Tue, 2022-11-15 at 00:49 +0100, Andre Klapper via evolution-list wrote: > On Mon, 2022-11-14 at 15:08 -0600, Tim McConnell via evolution-list > wrote: > > I'm getting this: > > There is no Evolution code call in there. > Feel free to file a bug report in gitlab.gnome.org with a full >

Re: [Evolution] Evolution segfault

2022-11-14 Thread Andre Klapper via evolution-list
On Mon, 2022-11-14 at 15:08 -0600, Tim McConnell via evolution-list wrote: > I'm getting this: There is no Evolution code call in there. Feel free to file a bug report in gitlab.gnome.org with a full backtrace ("thread apply all bt full" in gdb). Thanks, andre -- Andre Klapper  |  ak...@gmx.net

Re: [Evolution] Have I pushed Evolution beyond where it is designed to go?

2022-11-14 Thread Anonymous Japhering via evolution-list
On 11/14/22 12:08, Paul Smith wrote: On Mon, 2022-11-14 at 09:19 -0600, Anonymous Japhering via evolution- list wrote: The 3.46.x flatpak series has been a total disaster for me. Mysterious segfaults after 15 or so actions. This is (probably) due to the bug in libsoup, which has been fixed but

Re: [Evolution] Evolution segfault

2022-11-14 Thread Tim McConnell via evolution-list
On Mon, 2022-11-14 at 16:16 -0500, Paul Smith wrote: > On Mon, 2022-11-14 at 15:08 -0600, Tim McConnell via evolution-list > wrote: > > I'm on Evolution version 3.46.1-1 & Libsoup version 3.74.3- > > 1(testing). > > I don't think there's any such thing as libsoup 3.74.3.  The most > recent

[Evolution] Evolution segfault

2022-11-14 Thread Tim McConnell via evolution-list
Hi List, I'm getting this: (evolution:19042): GLib-GObject-CRITICAL **: 14:53:27.457: g_object_ref: assertion 'G_IS_OBJECT (object)' failed [Thread 0x7fff3aff76c0 (LWP 1800033) exited] [Thread 0x7fff37ff16c0 (LWP 1800030) exited] [Thread 0x7fff3c7fa6c0 (LWP 1800044) exited] [Thread 0x7fff377f06c0

Re: [Evolution] Have I pushed Evolution beyond where it is designed to go?

2022-11-14 Thread Paul Smith
On Mon, 2022-11-14 at 20:09 +0100, Ralf Mardorf via evolution-list wrote: > it was pointed out several times that Evolution downgrades are > sometimes a problem regarding the user data/settings. Downgrades of > any software can suffer from this issues. Of course. I didn't mean to suggest that

Re: [Evolution] Have I pushed Evolution beyond where it is designed to go?

2022-11-14 Thread Ralf Mardorf via evolution-list
On Mon, 2022-11-14 at 13:08 -0500, Paul Smith wrote: > The nice thing about flatpak is it's quite simple to install an older > version (e.g., Evolution 3.44) if that's helpful to you. Hi, it was pointed out several times that Evolution downgrades are sometimes a problem regarding the user

Re: [Evolution] Have I pushed Evolution beyond where it is designed to go?

2022-11-14 Thread Paul Smith
On Mon, 2022-11-14 at 09:19 -0600, Anonymous Japhering via evolution- list wrote: > The 3.46.x flatpak series has been a total disaster for me. > Mysterious segfaults after 15 or so actions. This is (probably) due to the bug in libsoup, which has been fixed but that fix has not made it to the

Re: [Evolution] Have I pushed Evolution beyond where it is designed to go?

2022-11-14 Thread Anonymous Japhering via evolution-list
On 11/8/22 00:21, Paul Smith wrote: On Mon, 2022-11-07 at 16:17 -0600, Tim McConnell via evolution-list wrote: On Mon, 2022-11-07 at 16:34 -0500, Paul Smith wrote: I'm not sure I understand this comment.  The whole point of flatpak (and snap) is that it's not _supposed_ to need to worry about