[CentOS] C6 Firefox 45.1 segmentation faults

Sat May 7 16:06:17 UTC 2016
Bill Maltby (C4B) <centos4bill at gmail.com>

On Fri, 2016-05-06 at 10:02 -0500, Johnny Hughes wrote:
> On 05/02/2016 04:43 PM, Bill Maltby (C4B) wrote:
> > On Mon, 2016-05-02 at 14:06 -0500, Johnny Hughes wrote:
> >> On 05/02/2016 01:46 PM, Bill Maltby (C4B) wrote:
> >> <snip>
> > 
> >>>> Anyone else experiencing unstable behaviour of FF 45.1 on C6?
> >>>
> >>> Day it was out I got the same. Since I already had some difficulties
> >>> with RH6/C6 upgrades changing the way things worked (or didn't, such as
> >>> telinit), I just did a yum downgrade FF and and kept using my tools as
> >>> tools.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Well, that update is critical for security, so I would try to help find
> >> the issues (we can feed back to RH and help them fix) .. rather than
> >> using something with critical security issues to browse the web.
> > 
> > I would like to, but since CentOS got integrated with RH I got the
> > feeling that a non-CentOS problem didn't get help here?
> > 
> Nothing has changed .. we never fixed non CentOS problems and rolled

That part is as I remeber it. What I was remembering is that a possible
bug would get reported, interaction possibly requesting more info would
occur, and someone would possibly confirm and issue. The either the OP
or CentOS flks(?) would post a bug in CentoS for tracking and someone
would post a bug at RH, etc.

As mentione in my post, my memory could be faulty, but what I just
described is how I remeber it working.

Then if RH fixed it the usual would occur.

> those into the main tree.  We have (and still do .. see
> http://people.centos.org/hughesjr/firefox-45.1.0-1.1.el5.centos/) ..
> sometimes provide some temporary things while fixes are being done by
> the outstanding RHEL engineers to fix issues.

> > With the upgrade to ... 6.6 I, and others, reported problems with X vs.
> > run-level changes causing issues.
> > 
> > Starting here
> > https://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/2014-November/148180.html
> > 
> > Dec 7 2014 bug report: https://bugs.centos.org/view.php?id=7972
> > 
> > Nothing happened even though I took the time to post a bug and collect
> > pertinent data and things discovered into a pastebin file with links for
> > everything.
> > 
> > So I made a guess that sans a RH subscription I had no way to pursue a
> > non-CentOS issue.
> If one finds that there is a non-CentOS caused issue (but it is a RHEL
> issue), then they can open a bug on bugzilla.redhat.com.  If you don't
> have a RHEL subscription, it might be better if someone else opens the
> bug there, but someone from the community who can verify it is a RHEL
> bug can certainly open up a report.  The RH Engineers want to make RHEL
> better, they want to fix real issues.  There will obviously NOT be any
> kind of SLA to get it fixed by a deadline, but they absolutely want to
> fix RHEL issues.

This is the part that, *if* my memory was correct, seems to have changed
in that ISTR CentOS folks and/or other community members would have done
what my memory (described above) describes and we would have seen a
follow-up with a bug opened at RH.

I can't emphasize enough, it's from my memoery of what used to occur.

> That is the actually the whole point of bugs.centos.org.  We need 'the
> community' to look at bugs.centos.org and see if they can determine if
> bugs are CentOS related or RHEL related.  If RHEL related, opening bugs
> on bugzilla.redhat.com.  If CentOS related, help us fix them and test
> them, etc. by creating patches.
One additional person was kind enough to update my CentOS bug report
confirming the same problem. That was the last action AFAICT though.

> We only have 5 total people on the CentOS team to do things. <snip>

> Then there is all the cloud image things going on so there are cloud
> images for AWS, Oracle, Azure, vagrant boxes, docker images, vendor
> clouds, etc. etc. etc.

Don't misunderstand - the contribution you and all the CentOS members
make is invaluable and well appreciated by me. It is one of the primary
reasons I choose CentOS.

The only point of my original post about the lack of follow up on the
bug I posted was that it *appeared* that the behavior when a bug was
reported *may* have changed (keeping in mind possibly faulty memory by

> The bottom line is .. CentOS needs community members, like our
> outstanding QA team and Forum Moderators (thanks guys and girls !!!) to
> be able to make things better.  We need those community members to do
> lots of things.
> All the mailing list, forums, bugs databases .. they are all there to
> help facilitate for 'the community' to help itself and make CentOS Linux
> better .. by making RHEL better.  If you can also use CentOS Linux for
> things that you want and it works for you, excellent.  It is open source
> and free and that is what its for.
> <snip>
> In the case of this particular issue <firefox 45.1 in c6>, it seems to <snip>

> We want other things, even things in CentOS Linux where the issue is in
> RHEL. to be handled the same way as this issue.  Start a discussion on
> the list, then if necessary report it at bugs.centos.org and try to
> determine if it is a RHEL or CENtOS introduced issue (or maybe an EPEL
> or Nux! issue).

I did all these things, within the limits of my current technical
capabilities. And my bug report, as well as the start of this thred,
suggested it was an upstream issue, which I thought might result in
someone being able to promote it to RH's bug system.

> While you are at bugs.centos.org .. look thorough open bugs.  If you
> (you is anyone, not you Bill .. anywhere you is used in this reply :D)<snip>

> Thanks,
> Johnny Hughes
> <snip>

To wrap up, I would like to again mention how much the efforts the
CentOS team and community members expend.

Thanks for taking the time to reply Johnny!