Firefox and CUPS: a bad interaction
I'm running SuSE 10.0 and Firefox 1.5.0.2. If I attempt to print the displayed window using File / Print (and CUPS), the window prints correctly - but the window showing the progress hangs up (and hangs Firefox with it). Killing the window doesn't kill the process. I've looked for something about this problem on Google, in vain. I don't know if the remedy lies with Firefox, with CUPS, or with some combination of the two. Outside of Firefox, printing works as it should. Any ideas, anyone? Paul
On Friday 28 April 2006 22:00, Paul W. Abrahams wrote:
Any ideas, anyone?
Hi Paul, Here are a few: 1) Open a shell (terminal) and launch Firefox from the command line. On my system a simple 'firefox' (no quotes) followed by 'Enter' works. When/if Firefox runs into trouble, you may get some useful output in the shell. (The idea is to reproduce the problem and look for complaints in the shell.) 2. Also, keep a second shell and text editor open during test 1, above. When you've reproduced the problem, run 'dmesg' in the second shell, look for errors and copy/paste them into the text editor. Do a 'clear' and then 'cat .xsession-errors' (no quotes), look for errors and copy/paste them into the text editor. 3. Using Konqueror, navigate to /var/log/cups, right-click on error_log, select 'copy', navigate to your desktop, right-click on the desktop and select 'paste'. You can now safely open and peruse a copy of the cups error_log file looking for clues. good luck! Carl
On Friday 28 April 2006 10:40 pm, Carl Hartung wrote:
On Friday 28 April 2006 22:00, Paul W. Abrahams wrote:
Any ideas, anyone?
Hi Paul,
Here are a few:
1) Open a shell (terminal) and launch Firefox from the command line. On my system a simple 'firefox' (no quotes) followed by 'Enter' works. When/if Firefox runs into trouble, you may get some useful output in the shell. (The idea is to reproduce the problem and look for complaints in the shell.)
Good idea -- it gave me an answer that's no answer at all, except to suggest that the problem lies within Firefox, not CUPS. Here's what I got: pwa@suillus:~> firefox ./run-mozilla.sh: line 131: 14691 Segmentation fault "$prog" ${1+"$@"} pwa@suillus:~> firefox *** glibc detected *** corrupted double-linked list: 0x09a97460 *** I suppose I could send that off to the Firefox folks, but it might not help them.
2. Also, keep a second shell and text editor open during test 1, above. When you've reproduced the problem, run 'dmesg' in the second shell, look for errors and copy/paste them into the text editor. Do a 'clear' and then 'cat .xsession-errors' (no quotes), look for errors and copy/paste them into the text editor.
dmesg had nothing relevant, but .xsession-errors ended with this: ASSERT: "id < (int)d->m_list.count()" in ./kdeui/kactionclasses.cpp (447) ASSERT: "id < (int)d->m_list.count()" in ./kdeui/kactionclasses.cpp (447) ASSERT: "id < (int)d->m_list.count()" in ./kdeui/kactionclasses.cpp (447) akode: Guessed format: wav KNotify::playTimeout X Error: BadWindow (invalid Window parameter) 3 Major opcode: 19 Minor opcode: 0 Resource id: 0x3800010 xscreensaver: 23:17:41: 0: unrecognised ClientMessage "_NET_CURRENT_DESKTOP" received xscreensaver: 23:17:41: 0: for window 0x40 (root) ASSERT: "id < (int)d->m_list.count()" in ./kdeui/kactionclasses.cpp (447) ASSERT: "id < (int)d->m_list.count()" in ./kdeui/kactionclasses.cpp (447) ASSERT: "id < (int)d->m_list.count()" in ./kdeui/kactionclasses.cpp (447)
3. Using Konqueror, navigate to /var/log/cups, right-click on error_log, select 'copy', navigate to your desktop, right-click on the desktop and select 'paste'. You can now safely open and peruse a copy of the cups error_log file looking for clues.
I [28/Apr/2006:23:17:34 -0400] Job 77 queued on 'LaserJet5' by 'pwa'. I [28/Apr/2006:23:17:34 -0400] Started filter /usr/lib/cups/filter/pswrite (PID 14940) for job 77. I [28/Apr/2006:23:17:34 -0400] Started filter /usr/lib/cups/filter/pstops (PID 14941) for job 77. I [28/Apr/2006:23:17:34 -0400] Started backend /usr/lib/cups/backend/socket (PID 14942) for job 77. That looks normal to me. Does any of this suggest anything to you? Paul
On Friday 28 April 2006 23:23, Paul W. Abrahams wrote:
Does any of this suggest anything to you?
Hi Paul, I agree your cups error_log looks clean. The Firefox segfault strongly suggests a core Firefox fault... bad installation... corrupted file... garbage left over from a previous crash... something fundamental. How did you arrive at this version of Firefox? Is this a 'clean' (all SUSE rpm) installation? Or is it self-compiled? ;-) Carl
On Friday 28 April 2006 11:50 pm, Carl Hartung wrote:
I agree your cups error_log looks clean. The Firefox segfault strongly suggests a core Firefox fault... bad installation... corrupted file... garbage left over from a previous crash... something fundamental.
How did you arrive at this version of Firefox? Is this a 'clean' (all SUSE rpm) installation? Or is it self-compiled? ;-)
I picked it up as a tarball from the Mozilla.com website. I've assumed that SuSE isn't keeping up with the fast pace of new releases of Firefox for security reasons. Am I wrong about that? I suppose I should try uninstalling and reinstalling Firefox and see if it makes a difference. Come to think of it, I haven't had this problem with older versions. Paul
On Saturday 29 April 2006 00:29, Paul W. Abrahams wrote:
I picked it up as a tarball from the Mozilla.com website. I've assumed that SuSE isn't keeping up with the fast pace of new releases of Firefox for security reasons. Am I wrong about that?
Look in: ftp://ftp4.gwdg.de/pub/linux/suse/apt/SuSE/10.0-i386/RPMS.mozilla Generally speaking, and depending on the maintainer's workload, you can expect updated SUSE rpms for major packages like Firefox to be available within a few days of the initial release. I always wait a couple of days and then start looking. The more obscure the package, the longer the wait can be. But I've never had to wait longer than a day or to for Firefox. Carl
On Saturday 29 April 2006 05:36, Carl Hartung wrote:
On Saturday 29 April 2006 00:29, Paul W. Abrahams wrote:
I picked it up as a tarball from the Mozilla.com website. I've assumed that SuSE isn't keeping up with the fast pace of new releases of Firefox for security reasons. Am I wrong about that?
Look in:
ftp://ftp4.gwdg.de/pub/linux/suse/apt/SuSE/10.0-i386/RPMS.mozilla
Generally speaking, and depending on the maintainer's workload, you can expect updated SUSE rpms for major packages like Firefox to be available within a few days of the initial release. I always wait a couple of days and then start looking. The more obscure the package, the longer the wait can be. But I've never had to wait longer than a day or to for Firefox.
Carl
Go one better switch to Seamonkey i have had absolutley no problems since i switched on all 3 boxes 9.2 32bit 10.0 32bit 10.0 x86_64 and now the laptop on 10.1rc x86_64 .. Pete . -- The Labour party has changed there emblem from a rose to a condom as it more accuratley reflects the governments political stance. A condom allows for inflation halts production destroys the next gereration, protects a bunch of pricks, and givesyou a sense of security while you are actually bieng fucked from GSM
On Saturday 29 April 2006 05:53, Peter Nikolic wrote:
Go one better
switch to Seamonkey i have had absolutley no problems since i switched on all 3 boxes 9.2 32bit 10.0 32bit 10.0 x86_64 and now the laptop on 10.1rc x86_64 ..
Hi Pete, Thanks for the suggestion, but I don't use the entire suite anymore (Seamonkey is formerly known as the Mozilla suite.) Firefox works just fine for me when I stick to SUSE-specific installation packages. regards, Carl
On Saturday 29 April 2006 15:04, Carl Hartung wrote:
On Saturday 29 April 2006 05:53, Peter Nikolic wrote:
Go one better
switch to Seamonkey i have had absolutley no problems since i switched on all 3 boxes 9.2 32bit 10.0 32bit 10.0 x86_64 and now the laptop on 10.1rc x86_64 ..
Hi Pete,
Thanks for the suggestion, but I don't use the entire suite anymore (Seamonkey is formerly known as the Mozilla suite.) Firefox works just fine for me when I stick to SUSE-specific installation packages.
regards,
Carl
Hi .. I don't use the Email side of it at all under Linux just the browser portion although it is all installed i prefere Kmail for mail . I know SM is supposed to be the followon from Mozilla i had been running Mozilla 1.8a for a long time with a few minor glitches just anoyances but since switching to SM it has been great so far not a single glitch at all the best by far PS the email side works very well in the windBloZe version i have to use the BloZe during the day Sage accounts dont live with wine or any of the emulators so far and i cant stand Outlook either the distress version or the full jobby ... crap springs to mind .. Pete . -- The Labour party has changed their emblem from a rose to a condom as it more accurately reflects the government's political stance. A condom allows for inflation, halts production, destroys the next generation, protects a bunch of pricks, and gives you a sense of security while you are actually being fucked. from GSM
On Saturday 29 April 2006 5:53 am, Peter Nikolic wrote:
Go one better
switch to Seamonkey i have had absolutley no problems since i switched on all 3 boxes 9.2 32bit 10.0 32bit 10.0 x86_64 and now the laptop on 10.1rc x86_64 ..
I never heard of Seamonkey until you referred to it, but a web search showed me that it's a Mozilla project. The Linux version is based on GTK, so I wonder: does Seamonkey play well with KDE? Firefox has some problems in that context, though they're not fatal. Paul
On Sat April 29 2006 11:36 am, Paul W. Abrahams wrote:
I never heard of Seamonkey until you referred to it, but a web search showed me that it's a Mozilla project. The Linux version is based on GTK, so I wonder: does Seamonkey play well with KDE? Firefox has some problems in that context, though they're not fatal.
I've been using seamonkey as my default for a while now. I had problems with Firefox hanging and crashing on a yahoo site, seamonkey did fine. I am running SUSE 10.0 and KDE 3.5.1 and seamonkey 1.0 -- Paul Cartwright Registered Linux user # 367800
On Saturday 29 April 2006 08:36 am, Paul W. Abrahams wrote:
On Saturday 29 April 2006 5:53 am, Peter Nikolic wrote:
Go one better
switch to Seamonkey i have had absolutley no problems since i switched on all 3 boxes 9.2 32bit 10.0 32bit 10.0 x86_64 and now the laptop
on
10.1rc x86_64 ..
I never heard of Seamonkey until you referred to it, but a web search showed me that it's a Mozilla project. The Linux version is based on GTK, so I wonder: does Seamonkey play well with KDE? Firefox has some problems in that context, though they're not fatal.
Seamonkey is the successor to the full-featured Netscape/Mozilla program, which is essentially firefox + thunderbird rolled into one. I have it on a VMWare partitition running 10.1RC2 and it seems fine there under KDE. It plays exactly the same as Firefox as far as I can tell. -- kai - www.perfectreign.com www.livebeans.com - the new NetBeans community 43...for those who require slightly more than the answer to life, the universe and everything.
On 06/04/29 11:36 (GMT-0400) Paul W. Abrahams apparently typed:
On Saturday 29 April 2006 5:53 am, Peter Nikolic wrote:
Go one better switch to Seamonkey i have had absolutley no problems since i switched on all 3 boxes 9.2 32bit 10.0 32bit 10.0 x86_64 and now the laptop on 10.1rc x86_64 ..
I never heard of Seamonkey until you referred to it, but a web search showed me that it's a Mozilla project. The Linux version is based on GTK, so I wonder: does Seamonkey play well with KDE? Firefox has some problems in that context, though they're not fatal.
Before Firefox, there was only the Mozilla suite. Firefox started as just the browser portion of the suite, with a new face, and a simplified feature set: http://www.mozilla.org/projects/firefox/ue/philosophy/realities.html SeaMonkey 1 is essentially what Mozilla 1.8 would have been had it not been officially terminated by the Mozilla Foundation's management. Mozilla suite lives on as SeaMonkey, so don't be fooled by the version number. The target markets and marketing philosophy of the two are different, but the guts of both, the Gecko rendering engine and Necko networking, are identical for equivalent revision versions of each. Currently, the equivalent release versions are FF 1.5.0.2 and SM 1.0.1. Both are build using the GTK2 toolkit, but FF is more closely tied to desktop themes, particularly when SM is used with its "Modern" theme, which makes it more succeptible to desktop shortcomings. I use only KDE, and find no unexpected differences between FF & SM. -- "Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them." Ephesians 5:11 NIV Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/
Hello, On Apr 29 00:29 Paul W. Abrahams wrote (shortened):
I picked it up as a tarball from the Mozilla.com website. I've assumed that SuSE isn't keeping up with the fast pace of new releases of Firefox for security reasons. Am I wrong about that?
Yes ;-) It depends what you mean with "Suse". Officially we cannot simply update Mozilla/Firefox all the time because other stuff depends on a particular Mozilla/Firefox version (browser plugins, other browsers which use Mozilla/Firefox engines, ...) But non-officially we are very up to date: ftp://ftp.suse.com/pub/projects/mozilla/ Please note that we don't provide support for those packages. Nevertheless those packages should normally work better for you than self-compiled software. Kind Regards, Johannes Meixner -- SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstrasse 5 Mail: jsmeix@suse.de 90409 Nuernberg, Germany WWW: http://www.suse.de/
On Friday 28 April 2006 11:50 pm, Carl Hartung wrote:
I agree your cups error_log looks clean. The Firefox segfault strongly suggests a core Firefox fault... bad installation... corrupted file... garbage left over from a previous crash... something fundamental.
How did you arrive at this version of Firefox? Is this a 'clean' (all SUSE rpm) installation? Or is it self-compiled? ;-)
I finally tracked down the SuSE rpm for Firefox (version 1.5.0.3) and installed it. And I still have the problem of the print progress window hanging when I try to print a web page. As before, when I call firefox from the command line, as you suggested, I get the message *** glibc detected *** corrupted double-linked list: 0x0977b148 *** shortly after the print progress window appears. Any more ideas? Paul
On Tuesday 02 May 2006 21:12, Paul W. Abrahams wrote:
I finally tracked down the SuSE rpm for Firefox (version 1.5.0.3) and installed it. And I still have the problem of the print progress window hanging when I try to print a web page. As before, when I call firefox from the command line, as you suggested, I get the message
*** glibc detected *** corrupted double-linked list: 0x0977b148 ***
shortly after the print progress window appears.
Any more ideas?
How did you install it? Carl
On Tuesday 02 May 2006 9:35 pm, Carl Hartung wrote:
On Tuesday 02 May 2006 21:12, Paul W. Abrahams wrote:
I finally tracked down the SuSE rpm for Firefox (version 1.5.0.3) and installed it. And I still have the problem of the print progress window hanging when I try to print a web page. As before, when I call firefox from the command line, as you suggested, I get the message
*** glibc detected *** corrupted double-linked list: 0x0977b148 ***
shortly after the print progress window appears.
Any more ideas?
How did you install it?
I installed Firefox by going to the projects section of the SuSE website, collecting the rpm, and then doing rpm -Uhv MozillaFirefox.rpm That wasn't quite enough, since I had previously installed Firefox from a Mozilla tarball, so I had to kill the firefox binaries in /usr/local/bin which were taking precedence. I also deleted the other Firefox files that were installed using the tarball. Then, using Help, I verified after restarting Firefox that I did indeed have the new version. Paul
On Tuesday 02 May 2006 23:16, Paul W. Abrahams wrote:
I installed Firefox by going to the projects section of the SuSE website, collecting the rpm, and then doing rpm -Uhv MozillaFirefox.rpm That wasn't quite enough, since I had previously installed Firefox from a Mozilla tarball, so I had to kill the firefox binaries in /usr/local/bin which were taking precedence. I also deleted the other Firefox files that were installed using the tarball. Then, using Help, I verified after restarting Firefox that I did indeed have the new version.
Ok, looks good, but after rpm -Uhv *.rpm did you then run 'ldconfig' and then 'SuSEconfig'? Carl
On Tuesday 02 May 2006 23:16, Paul W. Abrahams wrote:
I installed Firefox by going to the projects section of the SuSE website, collecting the rpm, and then doing rpm -Uhv MozillaFirefox.rpm That wasn't quite enough, since I had previously installed Firefox from a Mozilla tarball, so I had to kill the firefox binaries in /usr/local/bin which were taking precedence. I also deleted the other Firefox files that were installed using the tarball. Then, using Help, I verified after restarting Firefox that I did indeed have the new version.
Ok, looks good, but after rpm -Uhv *.rpm did you then run 'ldconfig' and
On Tuesday 02 May 2006 11:31 pm, Carl Hartung wrote: then
'SuSEconfig'?
Only after you suggested it. :=) It didn't help, though. I also did a reboot and that didn't help either. Paul
On Tuesday 02 May 2006 9:12 pm, Paul W. Abrahams wrote:
I finally tracked down the SuSE rpm for Firefox (version 1.5.0.3) and installed it. And I still have the problem of the print progress window hanging when I try to print a web page. As before, when I call firefox from the command line, as you suggested, I get the message
*** glibc detected *** corrupted double-linked list: 0x0977b148 ***
shortly after the print progress window appears.
One thing I noticed: there are newer versions of glibc in the projects section of the suse ftp site. My current version is 2.3.5. The ftp section has 2.3.6, 2.3.90, 2.3.91, and 2.4. Would it be a good idea to install one of those, and if so, which one? Paul
On Tuesday 02 May 2006 23:36, Paul W. Abrahams wrote:
glibc detected *** corrupted double-linked list: 0x0977b148
Hi Paul, How about running down a concise history of this system? What version of SUSE did you install originally? What packages or package groups have you upgraded since? Were they installed with YaST or from the command line? Were all the rpm packages from SUSE or the community (e.g. like Packman or Guru?) Were they all the correct version for the installed system? Are you running 'stock' KDE or the supplementary upgrades? Also, please post any interesting looking errors from 'dmesg' and 'cat .xsession-errors' Carl
On Wednesday 03 May 2006 12:21 am, Carl Hartung wrote:
On Tuesday 02 May 2006 23:36, Paul W. Abrahams wrote:
glibc detected *** corrupted double-linked list: 0x0977b148
Hi Paul,
How about running down a concise history of this system? What version of SUSE did you install originally? What packages or package groups have you upgraded since? Were they installed with YaST or from the command line? Were all the rpm packages from SUSE or the community (e.g. like Packman or Guru?) Were they all the correct version for the installed system? Are you running 'stock' KDE or the supplementary upgrades?
Also, please post any interesting looking errors from 'dmesg' and 'cat .xsession-errors'
My system is a 10.0, upgraded from 9.x (forget which one). Until just now I have been installing Firefox using the tarballs from Mozilla, but now I've replaced Firefox with the rpm from the SuSE projects. The older Firefox installations were done from a shell. I'm pretty sure that the newer Firefox has replaced the old one completely since I removed all firefox files from /usr/local/bin, and moreover the Help shows the new version number (1.5.0.3). The version upgrade made no difference. I also upgraded glibc from 2.3.5 to 2.4 (since the error message was coming from glibc), which neither helped nor hurt. My CUPS is standard issue, version 1.2.3. However, I also tried printing to a Postscript printer and saw the same result: the page printed out but the print progress window hung. dmesg ends with end_request: I/O error, dev fd0, sector 0 subfs: unsuccessful attempt to mount media (256) which looks unrelated, and .xsession-errors ends with xscreensaver: 10:22:00: 0: for window 0x40 (root) xscreensaver: 10:22:25: 0: unrecognised ClientMessage "_NET_CURRENT_DESKTOP" received xscreensaver: 10:22:25: 0: for window 0x40 (root) akode: Guessed format: wav KNotify::playTimeout ASSERT: "id < (int)d->m_list.count()" in ./kdeui/kactionclasses.cpp (447) xscreensaver: 10:24:27: 0: unrecognised ClientMessage "_NET_CURRENT_DESKTOP" received xscreensaver: 10:24:27: 0: for window 0x40 (root) xscreensaver: 10:24:32: 0: unrecognised ClientMessage "_NET_CURRENT_DESKTOP" received xscreensaver: 10:24:32: 0: for window 0x40 (root) ASSERT: "id < (int)d->m_list.count()" in ./kdeui/kactionclasses.cpp (447) ASSERT: "id < (int)d->m_list.count()" in ./kdeui/kactionclasses.cpp (447) X Error: BadWindow (invalid Window parameter) 3 Major opcode: 19 Minor opcode: 0 Resource id: 0x3200087 ASSERT: "id < (int)d->m_list.count()" in ./kdeui/kactionclasses.cpp (447) xscreensaver: 10:26:04: 0: unrecognised ClientMessage "_NET_CURRENT_DESKTOP" received xscreensaver: 10:26:04: 0: for window 0x40 (root) xscreensaver: 10:26:50: 0: unrecognised ClientMessage "_NET_CURRENT_DESKTOP" received xscreensaver: 10:26:50: 0: for window 0x40 (root) which might suggest that xscreensaver is somehow involved; the info on that is: Name : xscreensaver Relocations: (not relocatable) Version : 4.22 Vendor: SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Nuernberg, Germany Release : 5 Build Date: Tue 13 Sep 2005 12:28:45 AM EDT Install date: Sun 30 Oct 2005 07:07:00 AM EST Build Host: tait.suse.de In addition, with the new glibc (2.4) I get more information on the sick Firefox: *** glibc detected *** /usr/lib/firefox/firefox-bin: corrupted double-linked list: 0x094110a8 *** ======= Backtrace: ========= /lib/libc.so.6[0x40c5be32] /lib/libc.so.6[0x40c5bee5] /lib/libc.so.6[0x40c5d362] /lib/libc.so.6(__libc_free+0x84)[0x40c5d4c4] /usr/lib/libfreetype.so.6[0x406e3ebd] /usr/lib/libfreetype.so.6(FT_Free+0x21)[0x406e4321] /usr/lib/libfreetype.so.6[0x407241a3] /usr/lib/libfreetype.so.6[0x407241c9] /usr/lib/libfreetype.so.6(FT_Remove_Module+0xe5)[0x406e8425] /usr/lib/libfreetype.so.6(FT_Done_Library+0x98)[0x406e86d8] /usr/lib/libfreetype.so.6(FT_Done_FreeType+0x28)[0x406e42a8] /usr/lib/firefox/firefox-bin[0x81a8cb7] /usr/lib/firefox/firefox-bin[0x81a8fd2] /usr/lib/firefox/firefox-bin[0x81a93e6] /usr/lib/firefox/firefox-bin[0x8742836] /usr/lib/firefox/firefox-bin[0x87428eb] /usr/lib/firefox/firefox-bin[0x81a84f5] /usr/lib/firefox/firefox-bin[0x874372c] /usr/lib/firefox/firefox-bin[0x81a7837] /usr/lib/firefox/firefox-bin[0x8742ee3] /usr/lib/firefox/libxpcom_core.so(_ZN13nsCOMPtr_baseD2Ev+0xf)[0x4010a01b] /usr/lib/firefox/firefox-bin[0x82e0258] /usr/lib/firefox/firefox-bin[0x82d7eaf] /usr/lib/firefox/firefox-bin[0x8220aa8] /usr/lib/firefox/libxpcom_core.so(PL_HandleEvent+0x1c)[0x40147f30] /usr/lib/firefox/libxpcom_core.so(PL_ProcessPendingEvents+0x61)[0x4014857e] /usr/lib/firefox/libxpcom_core.so[0x401495af] /usr/lib/firefox/firefox-bin[0x81fcbd8] /opt/gnome/lib/libglib-2.0.so.0[0x406a715f] /opt/gnome/lib/libglib-2.0.so.0(g_main_context_dispatch+0x1fc)[0x4067d35c] /opt/gnome/lib/libglib-2.0.so.0[0x406807cb] /opt/gnome/lib/libglib-2.0.so.0(g_main_loop_run+0x1b7)[0x40680ae7] /opt/gnome/lib/libgtk-x11-2.0.so.0(gtk_main+0xc1)[0x40314861] /usr/lib/firefox/firefox-bin[0x81fcf50] /usr/lib/firefox/firefox-bin[0x8632d12] /usr/lib/firefox/firefox-bin[0x808aff2] /usr/lib/firefox/firefox-bin[0x80873ab] /lib/libc.so.6(__libc_start_main+0xdc)[0x40c0d87c] /usr/lib/firefox/firefox-bin[0x8087301] ======= Memory map: ======== 08048000-08931000 r-xp 00000000 03:02 609535 /usr/lib/firefox/firefox-bin 08931000-08949000 rwxp 008e9000 03:02 609535 /usr/lib/firefox/firefox-bin 08949000-094c0000 rwxp 08949000 00:00 0 [heap] 40000000-4001a000 r-xp 00000000 03:02 1910494 /lib/ld-2.4.so 4001a000-4001c000 rwxp 00019000 03:02 1910494 /lib/ld-2.4.so 4001c000-4001d000 rwxp 4001c000 00:00 0 4001d000-40021000 r-xp 00000000 03:02 1681131 /usr/lib/libaoss.so.0.0.0 40021000-40022000 rwxp 00003000 03:02 1681131 /usr/lib/libaoss.so.0.0.0 40022000-400a2000 r-xp 00000000 03:02 609709 /usr/lib/firefox/libmozjs.so 400a2000-400a7000 rwxp 00080000 03:02 609709 /usr/lib/firefox/libmozjs.so 400a7000-400a9000 r-xp 00000000 03:02 609764 /usr/lib/firefox/libxpcom.so 400a9000-400aa000 rwxp 00001000 03:02 609764 /usr/lib/firefox/libxpcom.so 400aa000-4016f000 r-xp 00000000 03:02 609766 /usr/lib/firefox/libxpcom_core.so 4016f000-40179000 rwxp 000c4000 03:02 609766 /usr/lib/firefox/libxpcom_core.so 40179000-4017a000 r-xp 00000000 03:02 133347 /usr/lib/locale/en_US.utf8/LC_IDENTIFICATION 4017a000-40181000 r-xs 00000000 03:02 1246644 /usr/lib/gconv/gconv-modules.cache 40181000-40182000 r-xp 00000000 03:02 589787 /usr/lib/locale/en_US.utf8/LC_MEASUREMENT 40182000-40183000 r-xp 00000000 03:02 589784 /usr/lib/locale/en_US.utf8/LC_TELEPHONE 40183000-40184000 r-xp 00000000 03:02 133346 /usr/lib/locale/en_US.utf8/LC_ADDRESS 40184000-40185000 r-xp 00000000 03:02 589786 /usr/lib/locale/en_US.utf8/LC_NAME 40185000-40186000 r-xp 00000000 03:02 589797 /usr/lib/locale/en_US.utf8/LC_PAPER 40186000-40187000 r-xp 00000000 03:02 589811 /usr/lib/locale/en_US.utf8/LC_MESSAGES/SYS_LC_MESSAGES 40187000-40188000 r-xp 00000000 03:02 133348 /usr/lib/locale/en_US.utf8/LC_MONETARY 40188000-40189000 r-xp 00000000 03:02 133349 /usr/lib/locale/en_US.utf8/LC_TIME 40189000-4018a000 r-xp 00000000 03:02 148605 /usr/lib/locale/en_US.utf8/LC_NUMERIC 4018a000-4018b000 r-xp 00000000 03:02 196667 /usr/X11R6/lib/X11/locale/lib/common/ By the way, is there any better way to make these traces available than embedding them in my post? Paul
On Wednesday 03 May 2006 10:32, Paul W. Abrahams wrote: <snip> Hi Paul, Nothing in what you posted jumped out at me as pointing to a specific source for your problem. It might be there, but I'm not a programmer... ;-) I don't understand how you accomplished the 9.3 to 10.0 upgrade. Did you install 10.0 'clean' but preserve/restore your 9.3 /home? Or did you actually 'overlay' the 10.0 installation on top of the installed 9.3 system? How, exactly, did you perform the "upgrade"?
By the way, is there any better way to make these traces available than embedding them in my post?
You can tar them up and send them directly to me if you want, as an attachment. Carl
On Wednesday 03 May 2006 11:39 am, Carl Hartung wrote:
On Wednesday 03 May 2006 10:32, Paul W. Abrahams wrote: <snip>
Hi Paul,
Nothing in what you posted jumped out at me as pointing to a specific source for your problem. It might be there, but I'm not a programmer... ;-)
I'm hoping that my bugzilla submission will lead to something. I believe that a buried flaw in Firefox is interacting with a peculiarity, but not an error, in my installation.
I don't understand how you accomplished the 9.3 to 10.0 upgrade. Did you install 10.0 'clean' but preserve/restore your 9.3 /home? Or did you actually 'overlay' the 10.0 installation on top of the installed 9.3 system? How, exactly, did you perform the "upgrade"?
I overlaid 10.0 on 9.3. As I remember, the installation procedure invites one to do just that.
By the way, is there any better way to make these traces available than embedding them in my post?
You can tar them up and send them directly to me if you want, as an attachment.
But then you're the only one who sees them. I guess I'll live with the long posts. Thanks again for all your help, Carl. Paul
Hello, On May 2 21:12 Paul W. Abrahams wrote (shortened):
SuSE rpm for Firefox (version 1.5.0.3) ... have the problem of the print progress window hanging when I try to print a web page. ... when I call firefox from the command line ... I get the message
*** glibc detected *** corrupted double-linked list: 0x0977b148 ***
shortly after the print progress window appears.
For 99.9% sure a problem in the Mozilla/Firefox source code. Please send a bug report either directly to https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/ or to us via http://en.opensuse.org/Submitting_Bug_Reports If you send it to us, please describe exactly which RPM (from where) you have installed on which system (Suse Linux version and your hardware architecture - e.g. 32-bit i386 compatible or 64-bit AMD) and which exact steps in Mozilla/Firefox result the above messsage. Kind Regards Johannes Meixner -- SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstrasse 5 Mail: jsmeix@suse.de 90409 Nuernberg, Germany WWW: http://www.suse.de/
On Wednesday 03 May 2006 05:49, Johannes Meixner wrote:
For 99.9% sure a problem in the Mozilla/Firefox source code.
Hi Johannes, I'm fairly confident he has additional problems needing attention. I'm not saying the Mozilla/Firefox code is innocent, but it is likely he also has some obsoleted/corrupted/conflicted libraries too. That's what we're troubleshooting now. He has been installing packages by hand... rpms and tarballs, some even from outside (not SUSE-specific) repositories... and for all I know there could also be some filesystem corruptions by now from all the "hangs". regards, Carl
On Wednesday 03 May 2006 5:49 am, Johannes Meixner wrote:
For 99.9% sure a problem in the Mozilla/Firefox source code.
Please send a bug report either directly to https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/ or to us via http://en.opensuse.org/Submitting_Bug_Reports
If you send it to us, please describe exactly which RPM (from where) you have installed on which system (Suse Linux version and your hardware architecture - e.g. 32-bit i386 compatible or 64-bit AMD) and which exact steps in Mozilla/Firefox result the above messsage.
I've sent the bug to bugzilla as #336435. If you need more information than what I've recorded there, please let me know. Paul
participants (7)
-
Carl Hartung -
Felix Miata -
Johannes Meixner -
kai -
Paul Cartwright -
Paul W. Abrahams -
Peter Nikolic