Bug#841098: not fixed in rygel 0.32.1-1

[Andreas Henriksson]

Hello Santiago Vila.

Thanks for the backtrace, it's helpful.

On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 01:16:20PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> The package FTBFS (sometimes) because rygel-media-engine-test segfaults.
> 
> Here is a backtrace:
> 
> (gdb) bt
> #0  0x00007f1a1a4b3fdf in raise () from /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6
> #1  0x00007f1a1a4b540a in abort () from /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6
> #2  0x00007f1a1af8a4f5 in g_assertion_message () from /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libglib-2.0.so.0

This is not a segfault though, but an assertion failure.

> #3  0x00007f1a1af8a58a in g_assertion_message_expr () from /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libglib-2.0.so.0
> #4  0x000055597c5578bd in __lambda19_ (_data3_=<optimized out>) at rygel-media-engine-test.c:2035
[...]

^^^ hint on where the failing assertion can be found.

(Please note that the source is vala so you'll need to translate this to
the applicable lambda in the vala source.)

> #5  ___lambda19__gsource_func (self=0x7f19f4001410) at rygel-media-engine-test.c:2047
> #6  0x00007f1a1af6368a in g_main_context_dispatch () from /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libglib-2.0.so.0
> #7  0x00007f1a1af63a40 in ?? () from /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libglib-2.0.so.0
> #8  0x00007f1a1af63d62 in g_main_loop_run () from /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libglib-2.0.so.0
> #9  0x000055597c559688 in rygel_data_source_test_test_stop_start (error=0x7ffe67fae238, self=0x55597df7e4e0)
>     at rygel-media-engine-test.c:2116
> #10 rygel_data_source_test_run (self=0x55597df7e4e0) at rygel-media-engine-test.c:2717
> #11 0x000055597c55a310 in rygel_data_source_test_main (args=<optimized out>, args_length1=<optimized out>)
>     at rygel-media-engine-test.c:2996
> #12 0x00007f1a1a4a12b1 in __libc_start_main () from /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6
> #13 0x000055597c556f4a in _start ()
> 
> It could be, of course, that my autobuilder is misconfigured, but the
> same segfault happened several times in buildd.debian.org in the past.

You're more than welcome to dive deep into this issue. Patches are
always welcome.

Claiming this is RC is a bit over the top though. If you're only out
to ride the policy train without actually wanting to debug it yourself
then I'll be forced to simply disable the testsuite. In my opinion
the testsuite exists to raise the quality of what we produce and
to *save* us time. If it becomes to time-consuming to maintain I'll
do without it. Disabling failing tests-suites is something I know
from personal experience that several release team members have
a strong opinion against. Disabling it for a extremely rare occational
failure is something I imagine they would be even more opposed to.

If you're strongly attached to (cluttering up my maintainer view and)
tracking every issue in the debian bug tracking system (I'd instead
recommend you use the upstream bug tracker), then I'd welcome
a bug report with severity minor. Minor is in my opinion the correct
severity for such an issue.

Regards,
Andreas Henriksson