bug#32458: Acknowledgement (SDL SEGFAULTs on foreign distro)

[Marius Bakke <mbakke@fastmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1700 bytes --]

Marius Bakke <mbakke@fastmail.com> writes:

> Tim Gesthuizen <tim.gesthuizen@yahoo.de> writes:
>
>> On 22.08.2018, Tim Gesthuizen wrote:
>>> This bisect passed without a single skip. It reports that the bug was
>>> first introduced by 5318b103ff277efbac248a066d162589a9083baa (which is
>>> the first commit after a larger merge).
>>
>> Maybe you missed that mail. The problem is that reverting the commit
>> does not solve the bug on the current master branch. So I am searching
>> for a good way of finding another bug through bisecting. This would mean
>> that I would need to apply a patch of some form to make sure that the
>> libepoxy problem is fixed before running the bisect script again.
>> This is why I tried to rebase the master branch to not include commits
>> updating libepoxy.
>
> Oh, I see!  Sorry for the confusion.
>
> One thing you can try to narrow down the search space is to try
> reverting that commit at different points in the repository.
>
> For example, I believe 5318b103f was merged in 49b6dc2b4.  If reverting
> on top of 49b6dc2b4 does not work, it means the (other) problem was
> introduced somewhere between 5318b103f^..49b6dc2b4.
>
> For starters, can you try to revert 49b6dc2b4 on top of 0d6f84aab and
> e0c9aed82?  My gut feeling says the first should work and the second
> not :-)

Sorry, I meant "revert 5318b103f" here.  But it does not make sense for
0d6f84aab, since it's not there!  It would be good to test it though,
since it comes from a 'core-updates' merge around the same time.

If 0d6f84aab works, good candidates to try next is reverting 5318b103f
on top of 0d6f84aab, 9a1f92a6e, and faccae1c3.

Hope this helps, and thanks for your patience here!

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 227 bytes --]