[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#348513: Segfault in Perl(-tk) script (was: Bug#348513: tetex-doc: tetexdoctk fails with "Couldn't open system-wide default config file texdocrc")



Frank K�ster wrote:
> Hi Joshua, hi Perl(-tk) maintainers,
> 
> Joshua Lee <joshua613@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 03:10:42PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
> >> Joshua Lee <joshua613@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> 
> >> > Package: tetex-doc
> >> > Version: 3.0-11
> >> > Severity: important
> >> >
> >> > texdoctk says "Couldn't open system-wide default config file texdocrc." 
> >> > then has a segmentation fault. 
> >> 
> >> If a perl script fails to open a file, it shouldn't give a *segfault*.
> >> Can you please send us the exact output?
> >
> > Couldn't open system-wide default config file texdocrc.
> > Segmentation fault
> 
> If I remove the file on my (sarge or sid) system, I get a Tk-window
> saying
> 
> ,----
> |                               FATAL ERROR
> |         Couldn't open system-wide default config file texdocrc.
> |                                   Kill
> `----
> 
> The "Kill" is in a button, and when I press it the perl script even
> exits with zero exit code.  It seems as if your perl installation has a
> problem.
> 
> Please send us the output of
> 
> dpkg -l perl
> dpkg -l perl-tk
> 
> There are a couple of segfaults reported against perl, but I don't have
> the experience to test whether this is a new one.

perl-tk was recently revved to a newer version in unstable to fix
release critical bugs.  Per my testing, the new version of perl-tk is
not always a drop in replacement for the older perl-tk version that was
previously available.  I originally uploaded the newer perl-tk to
experimental because of this.  My current plan is to contact the
maintainers of packages that depend on perl-tk and inform them that
their package may need to be rebuilt against the newer perl-tk package.

-- 
----------------------------
Michael Schultheiss
E-mail: schultmc@debian.org



Reply to: