Firefox Segfaults with fb1.5x when opening console, scripts, or net panels
Joel Watson
I'm using openSUSE 11.2 and firefox 3.5.7-2.4
Here's what I'm doing.
- Create a new profile
- Install only firebug (1.5x.0b9)
- open any page and inspect and element
- The HTML panel opens as expected
- Try to activate the console panel (or net or script)
- Firefox immediately closes with a segfault like '/usr/bin/firefox: line 128: 6705 Segmentation fault $MOZ_PROGRAM "$@"'
Anyone else experiencing this?
Joel
John J Barton
Use the 'official' 32 bit version.
jjb
On Jan 12, 11:14 pm, Joel Watson <joel...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi. I've been unable to use firebug 1.5x because it always segfaults.
>
> I'm using openSUSE 11.2 and firefox 3.5.7-2.4
>
> Here's what I'm doing.
>
> - Create a new profile
> - Install only firebug (1.5x.0b9)
> - open any page and inspect and element
> - The HTML panel opens as expected
> - Try to activate the console panel (or net or script)
> - Firefox immediately closes with a segfault like '/usr/bin/firefox: line
Joel
Why does the 64 bit version segfault? I never had that problem with
versions below 1.5
Joel
John J Barton
On Jan 13, 5:51 pm, Joel <joel...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks a lot! Work fine now with the 32 bit version.
> Why does the 64 bit version segfault? I never had that problem with
> versions below 1.5
It's a known Firefox problem.
jjb
Florent
US; rv:1.9.1.7) Gecko/20100108 Gentoo Firefox/3.5.7"
Switching back to 1.4.5. I will try again when firefox 3.6 is stable
on gentoo.
On Jan 13, 8:14 am, Joel Watson <joel...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi. I've been unable to use firebug 1.5x because it always segfaults.
>
> I'm using openSUSE 11.2 and firefox 3.5.7-2.4
>
> Here's what I'm doing.
>
> - Create a new profile
> - Install only firebug (1.5x.0b9)
> - open any page and inspect and element
> - The HTML panel opens as expected
> - Try to activate the console panel (or net or script)
> - Firefox immediately closes with a segfault like '/usr/bin/firefox: line
John J Barton
On Jan 19, 8:30 am, Florent <florent.pit...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Same problem with 1.5 stable on "Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-
> US; rv:1.9.1.7) Gecko/20100108 Gentoo Firefox/3.5.7"
> Switching back to 1.4.5. I will try again when firefox 3.6 is stable
> on gentoo.
Firefox 64 bit is not supported.
jjb
Marcus Better
Hash: SHA1
Joel Watson wrote:
> Hi. I've been unable to use firebug 1.5x because it always segfaults.
>
> I'm using openSUSE 11.2 and firefox 3.5.7-2.4
You are probably running into a Firefox bug [1]. Debian backported the fix
so iceweasel 3.5.6 works now. If your distro didn't backport it, you will
have to wait for Firefox 3.6.
Cheers,
Marcus
[1] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=510040
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAktWDjEACgkQXjXn6TzcAQmgegCeLt9TuYaiy7hGvOqYJWokR2OJ
gmIAmgMq+Ck0TIlqbGBwc/H/7jRLqfdF
=ebOW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Samuel ROZE
Regards,
Samuel ROZE.
confiq
So annoying!!!!
I can confirm this!
Will there be any updates for firebug untill ubuntu patch this? :(
John J Barton
On Jan 20, 7:36 am, confiq <con...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Afffffffff!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> So annoying!!!!
> I can confirm this!
> Will there be any updates for firebug untill ubuntu patch this? :(
No, Firebug will not be making any changes. You can install a
supported 32 bit Firefox for linux. I suggest you also complain to
Ubuntu about their choice to ship the unsupported 64 bit firefox.
jjb
Leon
> No, Firebug will not be making any changes. You can install a
> supported 32 bit Firefox for linux. I suggest you also complain to
> Ubuntu about their choice to ship the unsupported 64 bit firefox.
I can understand your obvious frustration with this issue John.
It reminds me of the IE6 situation we all suffer through. Something's
wrong, it's not your fault, but you still get the blame...
In these situations the only constructive thing to do is not to point
fingers, but to try and work around the problem, together with the
parties that caused the problem in the first place, if possible (not
possible with Microsoft, of course...). Sitting back and repeating
that it's not your fault is not helpful.
The brutal fact is that *you* broke my work system this morning by
pushing out Firebug 1.5 via auto-update before it was properly
tested. If there was ever a release blocking bug this was it, and you
should have picked it up during testing. I'm sure the Ubuntu folks
would have worked through the problem with you, so that you could have
avoided all this strain and drama.
Don't get me wrong, I'm still a huge Firebug fan, and really
appreciate the awesome work you do.
John J Barton
If this issue is important to you, then install and test our alpha or
beta builds. Users who did that found the bug months ago and got the
fix in the pipeline. It turns out no one told me that the fix was not
deployed in Unbuntu etc. I don't have a 64 bit linux machine. I don't
have time to test every unsupported build everyone makes.
If it's not important enough for you to do this for you system, I
can't see why it would be important for me to do it for *your*
system.
In the meantime, just install a supported Firefox build of 3.5.7 or
install Firefox 3.6. That is all you have to do.
jjb
Geoff
> In these situations the only constructive thing to do is not to point
> fingers, but to try and work around the problem, together with the
> parties that caused the problem in the first place, if possible (not
> possible with Microsoft, of course...). Sitting back and repeating
> that it's not your fault is not helpful.
That may not be helpful; however he has provided you with a very
helpful workaround - run the software in a supported configuration.
There, done!
> The brutal fact is that *you* broke my work system this morning by
> pushing out Firebug 1.5 via auto-update before it was properly
> tested.
Not true. *You* broke your work system by running an unofficial and
unsupported build of Firefox. Get over it. Or go and shout at Ubuntu's
package maintainers.
> If there was ever a release blocking bug this was it,
ORLY? I can see the conversation at Microsoft.
SteveB: There's a bug in Office 2010 that occurs when someone runs it
on the haxx0r'd version of Windows 8.
BillG: OMFG, block that Office release right now, it mustn't get out
the door!
> Don't get me wrong, I'm still a huge Firebug fan, and really
> appreciate the awesome work you do.
Well you sure ain't showing it.
Geoff
Marcus Better
Hash: SHA1
John J Barton wrote:
>> Will there be any updates for firebug untill ubuntu patch this? :(
>
> No, Firebug will not be making any changes. You can install a
> supported 32 bit Firefox for linux. I suggest you also complain to
> Ubuntu about their choice to ship the unsupported 64 bit firefox.
John, as you probably know, shipping official Firefox binaries is not an
option for source-based Linux distros. So I would assume that most Linux
users end up using non-official binaries, whether 32-bit or 64-bit, built by
their distributions and not Mozilla. And usually they carry patches not
present in official Firefox builds, and they may build against slightly
different libraries etc.
In short, most users on the Linux platform will use Firefox binaries other
than the ones provided by Mozilla. Now this time around we had a bug
affecting 64-bit builds, next time it can be a Ubuntu-specific bug in the
32-bit version. You could dismiss that too as an unsupported build, but the
fact is that this is what people are using.
As for those who complain about the crashes: the situation is pretty simple,
there was a bug in Firefox, it was fixed, and complaining here doesn't help.
Wait until your distro ships Firefox 3.6, or backports the fix like Debian
did, or use some other working binary.
Cheers,
Marcus
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAktYhU0ACgkQXjXn6TzcAQm+KgCgmcXJjWwBPKyKwAVhVAo/L2UY
3EcAoN1eRDIezTHQcCr63BBiiVM4lLdt
=qPKb
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
John J Barton
On Jan 21, 8:48 am, Marcus Better <mar...@better.se> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> John J Barton wrote:
> >> Will there be any updates for firebug untill ubuntu patch this? :(
>
> > No, Firebug will not be making any changes. You can install a
> > supported 32 bit Firefox for linux. I suggest you also complain to
> > Ubuntu about their choice to ship the unsupported 64 bit firefox.
>
> John, as you probably know, shipping official Firefox binaries is not an
> option for source-based Linux distros.
No I don't know this, but it also not relevant here.
> So I would assume that most Linux
> users end up using non-official binaries, whether 32-bit or 64-bit, built by
> their distributions and not Mozilla.
You write this as if 32-bit and 64 bit are some how equally valid
choices. This is not correct. The 64 bit version is not supported by
Mozilla. Ubuntu is shipping alpha releases as if they are products.
That is my first complaint.
> And usually they carry patches not
> present in official Firefox builds, and they may build against slightly
> different libraries etc.
The most serious change made by at least some distros is to remove the
crashreporter, a vital tool for diagnosing crashes and helping users.
This makes our job harder. That is my second complaint.
>
> In short, most users on the Linux platform will use Firefox binaries other
> than the ones provided by Mozilla. Now this time around we had a bug
> affecting 64-bit builds, next time it can be a Ubuntu-specific bug in the
> 32-bit version. You could dismiss that too as an unsupported build, but the
> fact is that this is what people are using.
The actual case and the hypothetical case are not similar. The 32-bit
build on linux is supported by Mozilla. Triage would point to Ubuntu
as the problem: they support it, fine. The 64 bit build on linux is
no supported. Triage leads "well maybe a user will offer a patch".
>
> As for those who complain about the crashes: the situation is pretty simple,
> there was a bug in Firefox, it was fixed, and complaining here doesn't help.
> Wait until your distro ships Firefox 3.6, or backports the fix like Debian
> did, or use some other working binary.
Here we absolutely agree!
jjb
mist...@gmail.com
well (64-bit Ubuntu). Interestingly enough, when I installed firebug
in a new Firefox profile, the problem seemed to not happen in that new
profile.
On Jan 21, 11:15 am, John J Barton <johnjbar...@johnjbarton.com>
wrote:
mist...@gmail.com
On Jan 28, 11:37 am, "p...@paulbonser.com" <mister...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> With a recent update, Firebug started segfaulting Firefox for me as
> well (64-bit Ubuntu). Interestingly enough, when I installed firebug
> in a new Firefox profile, the problem seemed to not happen in that new
> profile.
Whoops, nevermind, once I tried to use the script tab, it segfaulted
then.
John J Barton
used by the Console).
jjb
anderslinden
architecture. Why is there a 64 bit firefox at all then?
anderslinden
not segfault?
John J Barton
On Jan 30, 4:56 am, anderslinden <anderslin...@bredband.net> wrote:
> I dont think its bad to ship a firefox with for the right
> architecture. Why is there a 64 bit firefox at all then?
The 64 bit builds are test releases, alpha code to find bugs like the
one that crashes when you open Firebug 1.5. Or so I understand, you
need to ask Firefox team about their reasons.
Firefox 3.6 64 bit does not crash on this bug.
John J Barton
On Jan 30, 4:52 am, anderslinden <anderslin...@bredband.net> wrote:
> How can it be a firefox problem if previous versions of firebug did
> not segfault?
Firebug 1.5 uses jsdIFilter to improve the performance of Javascript
debugging. 1.4 did not use this feature.
jjb