--- Begin Message ---
Package: frozen-bubble
Version: 2.2.0-1
Severity: grave
Justification: renders package unusable
package now segfaults after my once-per-month "aptitude -t testing dist-upgrade" on 3-Mar-2009.
I've enjoyed wasting my time with frozen-bubble for several months. I suspect that I can fix the problem by
downloading the source and recompiling; which treatment I'll try when I'm no longer able to stand withdrawal
symptoms.
-- System Information:
Debian Release: 5.0
APT prefers testing
APT policy: (50, 'testing')
Architecture: i386 (x86_64)
Kernel: Linux 2.6.26-1-amd64 (SMP w/1 CPU core)
Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF8 (charmap=ANSI_X3.4-1968) (ignored: LC_ALL set to C)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash
Versions of packages frozen-bubble depends on:
ii fb-music-high 0.1.2 High quality, large music files fo
ii frozen-bubble-data 2.2.0-1 Data files for Frozen-Bubble
ii libc6 2.7-18 GNU C Library: Shared libraries
ii libglib2.0-0 2.18.4-2 The GLib library of C routines
ii libpango1.0-0 1.22.4-2 Layout and rendering of internatio
ii libsdl-mixer1.2 1.2.8-5 mixer library for Simple DirectMed
ii libsdl-pango1 0.1.2-4 text rendering with Pango in SDL a
ii libsdl-perl 1.20.3dfsg-4 SDL bindings for the Perl language
ii libsdl1.2debian 1.2.13-4 Simple DirectMedia Layer
ii perl 5.10.0-19 Larry Wall's Practical Extraction
ii perl-base [perlapi-5.10.0] 5.10.0-19 minimal Perl system
frozen-bubble recommends no packages.
frozen-bubble suggests no packages.
-- no debconf information
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 09:06:28AM -0400, The Wanderer wrote:
> Is this bug still actually open, or is it just that no one has bothered
> to formally close it yet?
The idea was to keep it open in case someone has the same kind of
problem. It seems that the time has passed, and it can probably be
closed now.
> It looks to me, from the discussion, that this has been completely
> unreproducible for anyone but the original reporter, and that the
> original reporter seems to have found a satisfactory resolution. If the
> original report points to a bug which could have other effects and needs
> to be fixed, then it's appropriate to still have a bug report covering
> that; if, however, the problem is a one-off, then there doesn't seem
> much point in leaving this open any longer.
Agreed.
> Even if the problem is not a one-off and the underlying bug could have
> other effects - according to a comment in the post which gave the bug
> report its current title, that actual bug if any is in dpkg-gensymbols,
> which seems to be part of dpkg-dev. If that's the case, wouldn't it be
> appropriate to have the bug be filed against dpkg-dev, rather than
> against libc6?
>
It's probably not dpkg-dev. If there is a problem it would be in the
contents of *.symbols files
Anyway closing the bug, thanks for remind me about it. And feel free to
reopen it if it is reproducible gain.
--
Aurelien Jarno GPG: 1024D/F1BCDB73
aurelien@aurel32.net http://www.aurel32.net
--- End Message ---