Bug#658641: mozilla-libreoffice: starts libreoffice when iceweasel quits
On Sat, Feb 04, 2012 at 09:09:35PM +0100, Mario 'BitKoenig' Holbe wrote:
> sometimes when iceweasel quits, libreoffice gets started unsolicited.
> A quite reliable way to reproduce this is to start a fresh iceweasel
> with just its about:home page, going to www.google.com and then Ctrl-Q
> it. Chances are good to get a libreoffice instance started.
>
> Here are some pstree excerpts while iceweasel quits and libreoffice
> starts up:
[...]
> It seems like the acroread plugin does something similar but while
> acroread terminates immediately (without showing up a window at all),
> libreoffice remains up and running.
>
> This issue seems to be somewhat known, google reveals a discussion on
> Ubuntu Answers about it:
> https://answers.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/firefox/+question/179649
>
> But since it shows up on Debian as well and I found no bug for it, it's
> probably time to make one.
>
> Btw...
> $ epiphany-browser http://btdigg.org/
> somewhat reliably launches libreoffice at startup, but I'm not sure if
> this is the same bug.
I _think_ there must have something changed on how iceweasel (de-)initializes
plugiins.
But: I never saw this here either way with
$ dpkg -l iceweasel mozilla-libreoffice
Gewünscht=Unbekannt/Installieren/R=Entfernen/P=Vollständig Löschen/Halten
| Status=Nicht/Installiert/Config/U=Entpackt/halb konFiguriert/
Halb installiert/Trigger erWartet/Trigger anhängig
|/ Fehler?=(kein)/R=Neuinstallation notwendig (Status, Fehler: GROSS=schlecht)
||/ Name Version Beschreibung
+++-==================================-==================================-====================================================================================
ii iceweasel 10.0.2-1~bpo60+1 Web browser based on Firefox
ii mozilla-libreoffice 1:3.4.3-3~bpo60+1 office productivity suite -- Mozilla plugin
Maybe it's new in 3.4.4/3.4.5, though I doubt they did changes to that plugin,
so it must be - if it's new - a side-effect of something else..
Regards,
Rene
Reply to: