From unknown Fri Mar 29 05:20:36 2024 Received: (at 398) by bugs.devuan.org; 21 Feb 2020 09:10:03 +0000 Return-Path: Delivered-To: devuanbugs@dyne.org Received: from tupac3.dyne.org [195.169.149.119] by doc.devuan.org with IMAP (fetchmail-6.4.0.beta4) for (single-drop); Fri, 21 Feb 2020 09:10:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mx.hindley.org.uk (mohindley.plus.com [81.174.245.179]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by vm6.ganeti.dyne.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0E62CF60A99 for <398@bugs.devuan.org>; Fri, 21 Feb 2020 10:05:17 +0100 (CET) Received: from apollo.hindleynet ([192.168.1.3] helo=apollo) by mx.hindley.org.uk with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1j54FG-0001cV-4O; Fri, 21 Feb 2020 09:05:14 +0000 Received: from mark by apollo with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1j54FE-0005ui-Tf; Fri, 21 Feb 2020 09:05:12 +0000 Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2020 09:05:12 +0000 From: Mark Hindley To: 398@bugs.devuan.org, garyk1953@charter.net Subject: Re: gufw: fails to start with segmentation fault Message-ID: <20200221090512.GU25435@hindley.org.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Debbugs-No-Ack: No Thanks User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=FAKE_REPLY_C,SPF_PASS autolearn=disabled version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on tupac3.dyne.org Control: tags -1 debian Gary, On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 18:51:29 -0800 Gary Koskenmaki wrote: > Package: gufw > Version: 20.04.1-1 > Severity: grave > Justification: renders package unusable > > Dear Maintainer, > > Upon installation of gufw, ufw, and iptables packages when attempting to > configure iptables from gufw, gufw fails silently when attempting to start gufw > from the gui. When calling gufw from the bash prompt it displays the following > errors. gufw is not a forked package. Devuan uses Debian's package directly. Also the version you are reporting against was only uploaded into Debian yesterday, I suggest you would be better reporting this directly in Debian's BTS. Thanks Mark