On Fri 21 Dec 2018 at 03:40:56 +0100, Bernhard Übelacker wrote: > Hello Brian Potkin, > > > You got exactly what I was shown. > > You are right, and I just wanted to make a point how someone > who want to help can start right away with all the needed information. > > > Do you really think reportbug would have added an imortant clue? It > > was clear that my original report was based on an unstable installation. > > It would have shown the architecture you are working with.
A fair point. > > It is not exactly the bug of the year, but, as far as I am concerned, > > there is a misbehaviour here. I know it is present, so can choose to > > not use the option. > > I did really not want to make you angry at me. Bernhard, you did not make me angry or annoyed. Apologies if the way I expreesed myself came through like that. You have been very helpful. > Maybe you still can test my proposed changes in message [#36-#3] ? I dusted off everything I know about patching and compiling (which can be written on the back of a postage stamp), altered cups-browsed.c as shown in [#36-#3] and ran make. The binary in .libs was transferred to /usr/sbin/cups-browsed. Restarting cups-browsed does not produce a coredump. :) Thanks, Brian.
