Your message dated Tue, 15 Feb 2005 03:02:10 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#294398: fixed in farpd 0.2-7
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere. Please contact me immediately.)
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--------------------------------------
Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 3 Feb 2005 00:25:29 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Feb 02 16:25:29 2005
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from h0040f4b05171.ne.client2.attbi.com (marvin.pweis.com)
[24.147.18.97]
by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 1CwUoL-0000Yk-00; Wed, 02 Feb 2005 16:25:29 -0800
Received: from pweis by marvin.pweis.com with local (Exim 4.34 #1 (Debian))
id 1CwUoH-0006us-6c; Wed, 02 Feb 2005 19:25:25 -0500
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2005 19:25:24 -0500
From: Philipp Weis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Debian Bug Tracking System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Segfaults or aborts with assertion.
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Reportbug-Version: 3.2
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040907i
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
(1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-8.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,HAS_PACKAGE
autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
X-Spam-Level:
Package: potion
Version: 0.0.3
Severity: grave
I wanted to try potion and it either segfaults or aborts with an
assertion right away.
| $ potion eth1
| potion: event_queue_remove: 0x804c3ec(fd -1) not on queue 1
| potion: event.c:614: event_del:
| Assertion `!(ev->ev_flags & ~(0xf000 | 0x9f))' failed.
| Aborted
or
| $ potion eth1
| Segmentation fault
This is both an the same machine, seemingly choosing randomly between
segfault and abort.
Here is a backtrace of the failed assertion case:
| #0 0xb7e617ab in raise () from /lib/tls/libc.so.6???
| #1 0xb7e62f12 in abort () from /lib/tls/libc.so.6???
| #2 0xb7e5b26f in __assert_fail () from /lib/tls/libc.so.6??
| #3 0xb7fd4328 in event_del () from /usr/lib/libevent.so.1??
| #4 0x0804a885 in ?? ()????
| #5 0x0804c3ec in optind ()????
| #6 0xbffff448 in ?? ()????
| #7 0xb7e64102 in exit () from /lib/tls/libc.so.6???
| #8 0xb7e64102 in exit () from /lib/tls/libc.so.6???
| #9 0xb7f0f7a3 in errx () from /lib/tls/libc.so.6???
| #10 0xb7fd475f in event_active () from /usr/lib/libevent.so.1??
| #11 0xb7fd45bc in event_active () from /usr/lib/libevent.so.1??
| #12 0xb7fd3d04 in event_base_loop () from /usr/lib/libevent.so.1??
| #13 0xb7fd3bbb in event_loop () from /usr/lib/libevent.so.1
| #14 0xb7fd3af0 in event_dispatch () from /usr/lib/libevent.so.119:19:32 ?
| #15 0x0804b0b2 in ?? ()
| #16 0x0804a865 in ?? ()
| #17 0xb7f69c60 in ?? () from /lib/tls/libc.so.6
| #18 0xbffff5b8 in ?? ()
| #19 0xb7e4e904 in __libc_start_main () from /lib/tls/libc.so.6
| #20 0xb7e4e904 in __libc_start_main () from /lib/tls/libc.so.6
| #21 0x080492a1 in ?? ()
And here for the segfault case.
| #0 0x08049f78 in ?? ()????
| #1 0xbffff2e4 in ?? ()????
| #2 0xbffff3e0 in ?? ()????
| #3 0x0804ac55 in ?? ()????
| #4 0x08052a7c in ?? ()????
| #5 0x42016dba in ?? ()????
| #6 0x42016dba in ?? ()????
| #7 0x00000169 in ?? ()????
| #8 0x00000000 in ?? ()????
| #9 0x00000001 in ?? ()????
| #10 0x00000000 in ?? ()????
| #11 0xcb0b0006 in ?? ()????
| #12 0x42da5f4a in ?? ()????
| #13 0x18931261 in ?? ()????
| #14 0x08930050 in ?? ()????
| #15 0x00000003 in ?? ()????
| #16 0x00000000 in ?? ()????
| #17 0x00000000 in ?? ()?
| [...]
| #59 0x00000000 in ?? ()
| #60 0xb7fd696b in evsignal_recalc () from /usr/lib/libevent.so.1
| Previous frame inner to this frame (corrupt stack?)
Let me know if you need more information.
-- System Information:
Debian Release: 3.1
APT prefers testing
APT policy: (600, 'testing'), (570, 'experimental'), (570, 'unstable')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Kernel: Linux 2.6.9
Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=C (charmap=ANSI_X3.4-1968)
Versions of packages potion depends on:
ii libabz0 0.4.6 Miscellaneous useful routines
ii libc6 2.3.2.ds1-20 GNU C Library: Shared libraries an
ii libdebug0 0.4.2 Memory leak detection system and l
ii libevent1 1.0b-1.1 An asynchronous event notification
ii libncurses5 5.4-4 Shared libraries for terminal hand
ii libpcap0.8 0.8.3-5 System interface for user-level pa
-- no debconf information
--
Philipp Weis [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://pweis.com/
---------------------------------------
Received: (at 294398-close) by bugs.debian.org; 15 Feb 2005 08:08:03 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Feb 15 00:08:03 2005
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from newraff.debian.org [208.185.25.31] (mail)
by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 1D0xkY-0000AU-00; Tue, 15 Feb 2005 00:08:03 -0800
Received: from katie by newraff.debian.org with local (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 1D0xes-0004jL-00; Tue, 15 Feb 2005 03:02:10 -0500
From: Javier Fernandez-Sanguino Pen~a <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Katie: $Revision: 1.55 $
Subject: Bug#294398: fixed in farpd 0.2-7
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sender: Archive Administrator <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 03:02:10 -0500
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
(1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,HAS_BUG_NUMBER
autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
X-Spam-Level:
Source: farpd
Source-Version: 0.2-7
We believe that the bug you reported is fixed in the latest version of
farpd, which is due to be installed in the Debian FTP archive:
farpd_0.2-7.diff.gz
to pool/main/f/farpd/farpd_0.2-7.diff.gz
farpd_0.2-7.dsc
to pool/main/f/farpd/farpd_0.2-7.dsc
farpd_0.2-7_i386.deb
to pool/main/f/farpd/farpd_0.2-7_i386.deb
A summary of the changes between this version and the previous one is
attached.
Thank you for reporting the bug, which will now be closed. If you
have further comments please address them to [EMAIL PROTECTED],
and the maintainer will reopen the bug report if appropriate.
Debian distribution maintenance software
pp.
Javier Fernandez-Sanguino Pen~a <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (supplier of updated farpd
package)
(This message was generated automatically at their request; if you
believe that there is a problem with it please contact the archive
administrators by mailing [EMAIL PROTECTED])
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Format: 1.7
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 16:50:55 +0100
Source: farpd
Binary: farpd
Architecture: source i386
Version: 0.2-7
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Javier Fernandez-Sanguino Pen~a <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Changed-By: Javier Fernandez-Sanguino Pen~a <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Description:
farpd - Fake ARP user space daemon
Closes: 294398
Changes:
farpd (0.2-7) unstable; urgency=low
.
* Recompile against latest libevent-dev (1.0b) and libdumbnet-dev (1.8)
(Closes: #294398)
* Build-Depend against libpcap0.8-dev | libpcap-dev
Files:
98a5615d9dc18b9b466c24ab8b38803d 733 net optional farpd_0.2-7.dsc
063a2cf4ce64a7cfd5d5035d85f740ff 64880 net optional farpd_0.2-7.diff.gz
417e8cb474844101eb7945c2f8c6fc1b 10916 net optional farpd_0.2-7_i386.deb
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)
iQCVAwUBQhGnyPtEPvakNq0lAQH0bwP9FE06ye+9x2eBRKmLq6fGmmD0By9x4BVY
ntzuhj26qIR0rOB/YpQsCZgcMjI8gexoEZyoea9OVvMB5YKw/eL3PaqXN3CPKw6y
SwdsjVeMmd8p6+JbgVXVyoGV6T0a1URcrPq/7VEbEphOCkh8KI1wZt5tU61GYKn5
t2lXYyaQIRU=
=5zY6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
