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

Re: GTK crashing X?

On 6/30/2014 4:12 AM, Chris Bannister wrote:
On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 11:16:58AM -0700, Matt Ventura wrote:
I've got a pretty old machine (Celeron 2.8 GHz, ATI rage XL). It's been
running Debian fine for years, but I reinstalled recently. Installed stable
(chose XFCE as desktop environment), everything worked fine (lightdm worked,
xfce worked). Did a dist-upgrade to testing (also tried unstable), and now
Did you downgrade to testing from unstable?

neither lightdm nor xfce works (lightdm goes into an endless crash loop,
xfce sends me back to the login screen). I can manually start an X server,
and it can display basic programs like xclock fine. But as soon as I start a
GTK application (or at least I think it's GTK causing the problem), X
crashes with "Segmentation fault at address 0xc" "Fatal server error: Caught
signal 11 (Segmentation fault). Server aborting". There's nothing in the log
immediately before the error other than the backtrace.

There doesn't appear to be a problem with any of those components
individually, since xfce and individual applications will both run perfectly
fine if I display them on another machine's X, so I'm not even sure what to
file a bug under.
I'd check the package versions from what you say above about trying stable
unstable and testing. Is the system in a sane state? i.e. does an
apt-get update/upgrade occur without issue?

Just as an aside, if stable was working fine why did you upgrade?

The system otherwise works completely fine. Packages operations work fine, so I don't think that's where the problem lies. There was no downgrading, just upgraded to testing and it didn't work, figured I might as well check if it was fixed in unstable
since it was a fresh install so there was nothing to lose.

It looks like stable has 1:7.7+3~deb7u1 for xserver-xorg, 2.24.10-2 for gtk2, and 3.4.2-7 for gtk3. Testing has 1:7.7+7, 2.24.23-1, and 3.12.2-1+b1. Unstable is the same
except gtk2 is 2.24.23-1.

Reply to: