Issue 11695

Summary:

644m1 install but doesn't start on Debian ...

Product:

General

Reporter:

charpen2 <charpent>

Component:

code

Assignee:

peter.junge

Status:

CLOSED DUPLICATE

QA Contact:

issues@framework <issues>

Severity:

Trivial

Priority:

P1 (highest)

CC:

chris, issues

Version:

644

Target Milestone:

---

Hardware:

OS:

Linux, all

Issue Type:

DEFECT

Latest Confirmation in:

---

Developer Difficulty:

---

Attachments:

Description	Flags
gzipped strace of an attempt to run 644_m1 on Debian	none

Description charpen2 2003-02-20 22:27:05 UTC

I installed the current 644_m1 on my Debian system (mostly woody but some
unstable components, therefore libc6 2.3.1-13). The installation is fine
(tetwork, then root, then ma as ordinary user). However, starting the
~/Openoffice644/soffice program neer returns : the system eats some CPU time for
about 3 seconds, then .. nothing. ps shows three to five processes (threads, I
suppose ...). eating some memory but no CPU time.

I straced this : it seems that soffice waits a system call (dont ask me what, I
dunno ...). killall soffice.bin kills all but one soffice.bin processes/threads;
which needs killall -KILL.

Of course, this renders 644_m1 totally useless on my system. Not being the gdb
type, I'm unable to guess the reason on this behaviour.

I'll try to send the strace (ISR that one can append a file to an already-filed
issue ...).

Could you please CC me your thoughs on this ? I'm following only dba (and tis is
more than enough for me ...).

Comment 1 charpen2 2003-02-20 22:31:32 UTC

Created attachment 4815 [details]
gzipped strace of an attempt to run 644_m1 on Debian

Comment 2 charpen2 2003-02-28 20:35:33 UTC

I just verified that the newer 644m4 snapshot exhibits the very same
problem (same symptoms, same cure).

Hope this helps ...

Comment 3 peter.junge 2003-03-13 11:07:15 UTC

I take care.

Peter

Comment 4 peter.junge 2003-03-13 11:08:45 UTC

We don't run on glibc 2.3.1 because of a problem in the glibc.

Peter

*** This issue has been marked as a duplicate of 10210 ***

Comment 5 peter.junge 2003-03-13 11:09:12 UTC

-> closed