Missing crash reports for long-running processes

Matt Zimmerman mdz at canonical.com
Mon Aug 24 09:04:23 BST 2009

On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 01:01:58PM -0700, Bryce Harrington wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 08:37:53AM +0100, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > Because the running X server is generally not restarted when it is upgraded
> > (because this would destroy the user's session), this seems like a common
> > case for users running the development branch.
> It shouldn't be restarted automatically, but the user probably should be
> strongly encouraged to restart after upgrading any of the core X bits.
> In theory, the system should run fine with one set of things installed
> and another older version actually running, however for QA purposes such
> systems are going to be a PITA to debug, and I'm sure apport and other
> QA tools have assumptions that $thing_running == $thing_installed.

It's easy to arrange for this via update-notifier, but the more components
which do this, the closer we get to the Windows 98 experience where
everything you do seems to require restarting.

> > Of course, this particular bug report would have been suppressed anyway, because the
> > package was out of date, and furthermore, according to the backtrace in the
> > log, my crash was a duplicate of
> > https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/bugs/343528.
> Out of curiosity, did updating to a version with my patch solve the
> crash, or no?

I was already running a version with your patch, I'm afraid.  I had rebooted
since installing it, so I'm pretty certain it was the running version.

 - mdz

More information about the ubuntu-devel mailing list