[WebKit-devel] [kwebkitpart] [Bug 317475] Konqueror segfault opening link in new tab

[Terence Wendt]

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=317475

--- Comment #36 from Terence Wendt <silicon.penguin67 at gmail.com> ---
>From Yast:
Version: 4.8.5+2.3.3-2.6.1 Installed: 4.8.5+2.3.3-2.6.1
Source Package: libQtWebKit4-4.8.5+2.3.3-2.6.1


On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 2:52 PM, Terry Wendt <silicon.penguin67 at gmail.com>wrote:

> This is interesting, when I run this command: " rpm -qa |grep
> libQtWebKit4  "
>
> This is the result I get: "  error: rpmdbNextIterator: skipping h#   11963
> Header V3 RSA/SHA256 Signature, key ID 3dbdc284: BAD  "
> Probably not related anyway...
>
> I using OpenSuSE 13.1
>
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 12:18 PM, Russ Fineman <upscope at nwi.net> wrote:
>
>> https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=317475
>>
>> --- Comment #34 from Russ Fineman <upscope at nwi.net> ---
>> (In reply to comment #33)
>> > Steps to reproduce:
>> > 1. Select context menu on a link
>> > 2. Select "Open in a new tab"
>> > 3. Konqueror crashes
>> >
>> > I don't know how to get my current QtWebkit version and have no way of
>> > knowing what it was when I reported that the crash occured. I generally
>> use
>> > Firefox as a web browser, so I can't recall exactly when the last crash
>> was.
>> From Command Line
>> Code
>> --------------
>> @linux-rpl7:~> rpm -qa |grep libQtWebKit4
>> -------------
>> Results on openSUSE 12.3
>> libQtWebKit4-4.8.5+2.3.3-91.1.x86_64
>> libQtWebKit4-debuginfo-4.8.5+2.3.3-91.1.x86_64
>> >
>> > These questions are mainly thought-provoking, rhetorical and intended
>> for
>> > the program writers: Shouldn't backtrace ideally pick up things like the
>> > QtWebkit version using the debug symbols? If it does not, is there not
>> a way
>> > to include whatever is necessary with the corresponding debug package?
>> Yes,
>> > I realize that distributors like Ubuntu change packages so that there
>> is no
>> > way to guarantee what is in the source ends up in the debug package. How
>> > many crash reports does it take to confirm a bug? Shouldn't the reports
>> from
>> > this and the duplicates be sufficient?
>>
>> --
>> You are receiving this mail because:
>> You are on the CC list for the bug.
>>
>
>

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.