[08:35] <micahg> ping asac
[11:04] <BUGabundo> hallo
[11:05] <BUGabundo> hey micahg
[11:05] <BUGabundo> up already, on a Sunday too ?
[11:06] <micahg> BUGabundo: haven't been to sleep yet :)
[11:08] <BUGabundo> ahh
[11:08] <BUGabundo> that's... bad!
[11:09] <BUGabundo> (firefox-3.6:11673): Gtk-CRITICAL **: gtk_tree_sortable_set_sort_column_id: assertion `GTK_IS_TREE_SORTABLE (sortable)' failed
[11:09] <BUGabundo> [New Thread 0x7f0b55c56950 (LWP 12308)]
[11:09] <BUGabundo> [Thread 0x7f0b55c56950 (LWP 12308) exited]
[11:09] <BUGabundo> Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
[11:09] <BUGabundo> [Switching to Thread 0x7f0b83f5e710 (LWP 11673)]
[11:09] <BUGabundo> guudie! a reproducebla FF crash
[11:11] <BUGabundo> I think it's a know GTK bug with sort list
[11:14] <micahg> stevel reported a similar bug in ff3.0
[11:14] <micahg> bug 393005
[11:14] <ubottu> Launchpad bug 393005 in firefox-3.0 "firefox crashes with "gtk_tree_sortable_set_sort_column_id: assertion `GTK_IS_TREE_SORTABLE (sortable)' failed" in file selection dialog" [Critical,Triaged] https://launchpad.net/bugs/393005
[11:14] <BUGabundo> yeah but it is a GTK known bug
[11:14] <BUGabundo> not a FF one
[11:14] <BUGabundo> several ppl suffeting from it on +1
[11:14] <micahg> do you have a bug #?
[11:15] <BUGabundo> better change Affects
[11:15] <BUGabundo> no micahg
[11:15] <BUGabundo> not that many gtk bugs eheh
[11:15] <BUGabundo> should be quick to find knowing the error trace
[11:16] <micahg> BUGabundo: bug 391398
[11:16] <ubottu> Launchpad bug 391398 in gtk+2.0 "Applications segfault with gtk+ version 2.17.2 when selecting listbox values" [High,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/391398
[11:17] <BUGabundo> yeah could be it
[11:17] <BUGabundo> how do you think we should do?
[11:18] <micahg> I'm just going to post a comment
[11:18] <BUGabundo> set affect to gtk and leave FF invalid to get extra hits?
[11:18] <BUGabundo> 'cause removing FF will just make ppl file new bugs on Firefox
[11:18] <micahg> well, I can add FF on the gtk bug
[11:18] <micahg> the gtk bug is master
[11:19] <BUGabundo> humm dupe that one, and mark FF invalid I guess
[11:19] <micahg> now that I know what it is, I can just dupe the ff bugs
[11:19] <BUGabundo> great
[11:19] <BUGabundo> see, you should be on +1 too
[11:19] <BUGabundo> eheh
[11:19] <micahg> nah
[11:20] <micahg> I have do work on my Ubuntu install :)
[11:21] <BUGabundo> LOLOL
[11:21] <BUGabundo> I meant the #, not OS version
[11:21] <BUGabundo> ahaha
[11:21] <BUGabundo> very annoying bug, making navigation on the Open PATH bar unusable :((
[11:22] <micahg> ah
[11:22] <micahg> nah, I don' thave time to read all that
[11:26] <micahg> Were those 2 bugs the same error?
[11:29] <BUGabundo> which too?
[11:29] <BUGabundo> mine and the reported?
[11:29] <BUGabundo> or both you mention?
[11:30] <micahg> no, the 2 I mentioned
[11:30] <BUGabundo> a quick look at trace seems so
[11:30] <BUGabundo> but feel free to download the BT and compare
[11:31] <micahg> the ff bug didn't have a BT
[11:31] <BUGabundo> ahh
[11:32] <BUGabundo> ask steve for one
[11:32] <BUGabundo> or I can reproduce one pretty easy
[11:32] <micahg> well, he'll check the bug in the morning
[11:32] <micahg> and either contribute to it
[11:32] <BUGabundo> just need to get the gdb libs (again)
[11:32] <micahg> or yell at me for duping it :)
[11:32] <BUGabundo> yeah, if it isn't some one will undupe or file a new
[11:33] <micahg> I'm wondering if I should tag the gtk bug metabug
[11:34] <BUGabundo> ask on #-bugs
[11:40] <micahg> hi
[11:41] <micahg> I unduped it
[11:41] <micahg> there was another similar bug with a separate upstream
[11:41] <micahg> which leads me to believe that this one might be different as well
[11:41] <micahg> different symptoms
[11:42] <BUGabundo> ok
[11:42]  * micahg really needs to get some sleep
[11:44] <BUGabundo> ahah
[11:45] <BUGabundo> its Noon here
[11:45] <BUGabundo> there?
[13:26] <BUGabundo> anyone ever heard of http://www.ksplice.com/ ? upgrading without reboots
[13:49] <BUGabundo> $ firefox-3.6
[13:49] <BUGabundo> Gdk-ERROR **: The program 'firefox-3.6' received an X Window System error.
[13:49] <BUGabundo> This probably reflects a bug in the program.
[13:49] <BUGabundo> The error was 'BadWindow (invalid Window parameter)'.
[13:49] <BUGabundo>   (Details: serial 1853 error_code 3 request_code 20 minor_code 0)
[13:49] <BUGabundo> fta: do you know this one ?
[14:35] <andrew_sayers> If I test an extension in the latest ubuntu-mozilla-daily, is it safe to mark the extension as working in 3.5?
[14:41] <BUGabundo> I guess
[14:45] <andrew_sayers> BUGabundo: Fair enough, may the fox smite me down if I am wrong :)
[14:47] <BUGabundo> yeah
=== BUGabundo1 is now known as BUGabundo
=== asac_ is now known as asac
=== micahg1 is now known as micahg
=== micahg1 is now known as micahg
[23:34] <fta> fta@ix:~ $ firefox-3.6
[23:34] <fta> INTERNAL ERROR on Browser End: Could not get the plugin manager
[23:34] <fta> System error?:: No such file or directory
[23:34] <fta> asac, ^^
[23:36] <BUGabundo> hey fta
[23:36] <BUGabundo> back?
[23:37] <fta> yes
[23:37] <fta> gasp, same in safe mode
[23:38] <BUGabundo> I need to start 3.6 3 or 4 times for it to work
[23:38] <BUGabundo> --syns does help
[23:38] <fta> why?
[23:38] <BUGabundo> there's a trace up, in the log here
[23:40] <fta> ok, not the same