Bug 497778

Summary: Brasero floods .xsession-errors log with "Unknown (or already deleted) monitored directory" warnings
Product: [openSUSE] openSUSE 11.1 Reporter: Mike Latimer <mlatimer>
Component: GNOMEAssignee: E-mail List <gnome-bugs>
Status: RESOLVED FIXED QA Contact: E-mail List <qa-bugs>
Severity: Normal    
Priority: P5 - None CC: forgotten_Xh41Ao4q6j, lmedinas, vuntz
Version: FinalKeywords: should_go_upstream
Target Milestone: ---   
Hardware: x86-64   
OS: Other   
URL: http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=580617
Whiteboard:
Found By: --- Services Priority:
Business Priority: Blocker: ---
Marketing QA Status: --- IT Deployment: ---
Attachments: First and last 1000 lines from .xsession-errors.

Description Mike Latimer 2009-04-23 20:10:15 UTC
After burning an ISO image to a CD, Brasero ejected the CD-ROM properly, and I deleted the source ISO image. Brasero was not being very responsive so I left it up while I left the office for a couple of hours. After returning I found that my /home partition was out of disk space. Some investigation revealed that ~/.xsession-errors had grown to 4.5GB with a huge amount of the following messages:

** (brasero:8395): WARNING **: Unknown (or already deleted) monitored directory = > ignored

** (brasero:8395): WARNING **: Unknown (or already deleted) monitored directory = > ignored

** (brasero:8395): WARNING **: Unknown (or already deleted) monitored directory = > ignored

I am not sure if the above warning is due to the deletion of the ISO image, but I deleted that image after the CD was ejected. Also, nothing should ever generate 4.5GB of the exact same error message.
Comment 1 Mike Latimer 2009-04-23 20:27:42 UTC
Created attachment 287893 [details]
First and last 1000 lines from .xsession-errors.
Comment 2 Vincent Untz 2009-04-28 15:52:25 UTC
I've forwarded the bug upstream: http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=580617

I'm not yet decided whether this bug is severe enough for an online update, so not closing it for now.
Comment 3 Vincent Untz 2009-06-29 10:42:24 UTC
Mike: in the upstream bug, there's a question for you:

=====
Now I'd really like to be able to reproduce the cause of the bug, that is why
does brasero receives all these notifications in the first place for a file he
apparently doesn't know?

Have you got more instructions on how reproducing the bug please?
=====
Comment 4 Mike Latimer 2009-06-29 16:45:34 UTC
(In reply to comment #3)
> Mike: in the upstream bug, there's a question for you:
> 
> =====
> Now I'd really like to be able to reproduce the cause of the bug, that is why
> does brasero receives all these notifications in the first place for a file he
> apparently doesn't know?
> 
> Have you got more instructions on how reproducing the bug please?
> =====

Unfortunately, I cannot give you any more precise steps to duplicate the issue. I burned a couple of ISOs, and after the second one completed (and was automatically ejected), I tried to close down Brasero and found it unresponsive. As I was leaving for lunch, I didn't bother killing the process and just left it running (thinking it would probably close by itself). I did delete the source ISO image though, and then left. When I returned I found the problem documented in the original description.

I agree that the original source of the problem would be nice to get resolved, but I'm afraid I cannot duplicate this issue at will, and it only happened once. The upstream fix does appear to resolve the end result of a huge log file though.

(BTW - Should I post these comments upstream, or let you do that?)
Comment 5 Luis Medinas 2009-07-29 15:53:28 UTC
During the 2.27.x releases we somehow tried to fix this problem. Can you confirm if it's fixed on 2.27.5 ?
Comment 6 Vincent Untz 2009-08-04 17:42:20 UTC
(In reply to comment #4)
> I agree that the original source of the problem would be nice to get resolved,
> but I'm afraid I cannot duplicate this issue at will, and it only happened
> once.

Okay, it only happened once, so I guess we won't be able to push for an update there. So let's just close the bug since it's fixed upstream.

> The upstream fix does appear to resolve the end result of a huge log file
> though.
> 
> (BTW - Should I post these comments upstream, or let you do that?)

I've done it :-)

Thanks!