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

Bug#251408: openoffice.org-crashrep: crashrep does not report



Package: openoffice.org-crashrep
Version: 1.1.1-3
Severity: normal
Tags: sid



-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
  APT prefers unstable
  APT policy: (500, 'unstable')
Architecture: sparc (sparc64)
Kernel: Linux 2.6.5
Locale: LANG=en_US, LC_CTYPE=en_US

Versions of packages openoffice.org-crashrep depends on:
ii  libatk1.0-0               1.6.1-2        The ATK accessibility toolkit
ii  libc6                     2.3.2.ds1-12   GNU C Library: Shared libraries an
ii  libglib2.0-0              2.4.1-2        The GLib library of C routines
ii  libgtk2.0-0               2.4.1-4        The GTK+ graphical user interface 
ii  libpango1.0-0             1.4.0-3        Layout and rendering of internatio
ii  libstdc++5                1:3.3.3-9      The GNU Standard C++ Library v3
ii  libstlport4.6             4.6.2-1        STLport C++ class library
ii  libx11-6                  4.3.0.dfsg.1-2 X Window System protocol client li
ii  libxext6                  4.3.0.dfsg.1-2 X Window System miscellaneous exte
ii  openoffice.org            1.1.1-3        high-quality office productivity s
ii  xlibs                     4.3.0.dfsg.1-2 X Window System client libraries m

-- no debconf information

when the product does crash, this is the report:
/usr/lib/openoffice/program/crash_report: line 78:
/usr/lib/openoffice/program/crash_report_with_gtk.bin: No such file or
directory


Fatal exception: Signal 10
Stack:
[0x0]
Aborted

It appears the produxt on linux sparc has been build with configure
switch --enable-crashdump

Upstream this feature is not implemented. Instead there is code in
sal/osl/unx/makefile.mk, signal.c, backtrace.c and backtrace.h which by
default (with no configure switches) emits a backtrace to standard
output when running in a x console.

So I am not sure if debian packagers have tried to implement patches for
--enable-crashdump, or was this enabled in error?



Reply to: