Anyone else seeing this? This is happening on a straight "Desktop"
install
of CentOS 6.6 fully updated. I have made no changes other than installing
Thunderbird. Thunderbird will occasionally (10 to 20% of the time) fail to
start, and the abrt report indicates a signal 11 (SIGSEGV). I don't see
any other reports of this. Is no one using Thunderbird these days?
Do abrt reports submitted from CentOS go anywhere useful these days? I
saw some discussion a while back, but don't recall the results. Should
I submit one?
--
Bob Nichols "NOSPAM" is really part of my email address.
Do NOT delete it.
On 01/10/15 20:39, Robert Nichols wrote:> Anyone else seeing this? This is happening on a straight "Desktop" install > of CentOS 6.6 fully updated. I have made no changes other than > installing Thunderbird. Thunderbird will occasionally (10 to 20% of the > time) fail to > start, and the abrt report indicates a signal 11 (SIGSEGV). I don't see > any other reports of this. Is no one using Thunderbird these days? > > Do abrt reports submitted from CentOS go anywhere useful these days? I > saw some discussion a while back, but don't recall the results. Should > I submit one? >I have the same problem with Thunderbird and Firefox after the update from C6.5 to C6.6. I've wined and complained about it on this list in the past but have not seen any useful response. Other users on this same system have the same issue so it's not my personal profile that's causing the issue. The C6.6 update also broke web camera functionality. I understand there's a kernel patch that fixed the web camera issue but it has yet to ship in any production C6 32 bit or 64 bit kernels. To work around the Thunderbird/Firefox issue I start them in a terminal: [mlapier at mushroom ~]$ thunderbird & [mlapier at mushroom ~]$ firefox & If they fail to start after a reasonable time I use the up cursor key and replay the command until it does work. [mlapier at mushroom ~]$ thunderbird & [1] 22072 [mlapier at mushroom ~]$ [calBackendLoader] Using libical backend at /home/mlapier/.thunderbird/1qzdaguv.default/extensions/{e2fda1a4-762b-4020-b5ad-a41df1933103}/components/libical.manifest enigmail.js: Registered components mimeVerify.jsm: module initialized [mlapier at mushroom ~]$ firefox & [2] 22125 [mlapier at mushroom ~]$ firefox & [3] 22158 [2] Segmentation fault (core dumped) firefox [mlapier at mushroom ~]$ firefox & [4] 22244 [3] Segmentation fault (core dumped) firefox [mlapier at mushroom ~]$ firefox & [5] 22340 [4] Segmentation fault (core dumped) firefox [mlapier at mushroom ~]$ firefox & [6] 22426 [5] Segmentation fault (core dumped) firefox [mlapier at mushroom ~]$ CentOS release 6.6 (Final) Linux mushroom.patch 2.6.32-504.3.3.el6.i686 #1 SMP Tue Dec 16 22:55:44 UTC 2014 i686 i686 i386 GNU/Linux 21:54:52 up 1 day, 13:27, 3 users, load average: 2.02, 2.07, 2.14 -- _ ?v? /(_)\ ^ ^ Mark LaPierre Registered Linux user No #267004 https://linuxcounter.net/ ****
On 01/10/2015 07:39 PM, Robert Nichols wrote:> Anyone else seeing this? This is happening on a straight "Desktop" install > of CentOS 6.6 fully updated. I have made no changes other than installing > Thunderbird. Thunderbird will occasionally (10 to 20% of the time) fail to > start, and the abrt report indicates a signal 11 (SIGSEGV). I don't see > any other reports of this. Is no one using Thunderbird these days? > > Do abrt reports submitted from CentOS go anywhere useful these days? I > saw some discussion a while back, but don't recall the results. Should > I submit one?Another data point: If I install CentOS 6.6 from the distribution ISO and do _not_ do an update, Thunderbird seems to start reliably -- 100 starts and no failures. As soon as I install the current set of updates, it starts failing. -- Bob Nichols "NOSPAM" is really part of my email address. Do NOT delete it.
I haven't seen this, but I'm curious if it has something to do with
your configuration. What I would suggest trying is working from a clean
config.
mv ~/.thunderbird ~/.thunderbird.backup
Try it like that. If it starts correctly, then it is your config and
you'll probably have to recreate your config to make it work. If it
doesn't, then rename .thunderbird.config back to .thunderbird. No harm
done.
You can also install the latest version of thunderbird from Mozilla.org
and install it in /opt or /usr/local or where ever you are comfortable.
- Jason
On 2015-01-10 23:31, Robert Nichols wrote:> On 01/10/2015 07:39 PM, Robert Nichols wrote:
>> Anyone else seeing this? This is happening on a straight
"Desktop"
>> install
>> of CentOS 6.6 fully updated. I have made no changes other than
>> installing
>> Thunderbird. Thunderbird will occasionally (10 to 20% of the time)
>> fail to
>> start, and the abrt report indicates a signal 11 (SIGSEGV). I don't
>> see
>> any other reports of this. Is no one using Thunderbird these days?
>>
>> Do abrt reports submitted from CentOS go anywhere useful these days?
>> I
>> saw some discussion a while back, but don't recall the results.
Should
>> I submit one?
>
> Another data point: If I install CentOS 6.6 from the distribution ISO
> and
> do _not_ do an update, Thunderbird seems to start reliably -- 100
> starts
> and no failures. As soon as I install the current set of updates, it
> starts
> failing.
On Sat, Jan 10, 2015 at 6:56 PM, Mark LaPierre <marklapier at gmail.com> wrote:> On 01/10/15 20:39, Robert Nichols wrote: >> Anyone else seeing this? This is happening on a straight "Desktop" install >> of CentOS 6.6 fully updated. I have made no changes other than >> installing Thunderbird. Thunderbird will occasionally (10 to 20% of the >> time) fail to >> start, and the abrt report indicates a signal 11 (SIGSEGV). I don't see >> any other reports of this. Is no one using Thunderbird these days?> I have the same problem with Thunderbird and Firefox after the update > from C6.5 to C6.6. I've wined and complained about it on this list in > the past but have not seen any useful response. > Mark LaPierreAre you referring to this thread by any chance? http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/2014-December/148445.html The upstream bugzilla referenced in there is now private but I provided the known workaround. Have you tried it? It worked for me and others. Akemi