Comment 97 for bug 507062

Eliah, thanks for the analysis you've done, that's quite helpful. You mention that the bug you encountered is "almost certainly" a dupe of this one, however looking at both bug 876799 and bug 887189, I'm not immediately spotting clear evidence that it is indeed a dupe. Would you mind elaborating on how you're determining it?

From the stacktraces on your bug reports, it looks like the only thing in common is the _kernel_vsyscall line, but that could mean anything. What really must match in your backtrace for it to be a dupe is this bit:

#3 0x05cf3718 in *__GI___assert_fail (assertion=0x16927e5 "ret != inval_id",
    file=0x16927a9 "../../src/xcb_io.c", line=385,
    function=0x1692964 "_XAllocID") at assert.c:81
 buf = 0x960c538 "synaptic: ../../src/xcb_io.c:385: _XAllocID: Assertion `ret != inval_id' failed.\n"

I suspect the "Assertion `ret != inval_id' failed." error message should show up in one of your logs (probably .xsession-errors, but also check /var/log/lightdm/* and /var/log/Xorg.0.log).

I'm going to drop the 'precise' tag until there is stronger verification that the bug does exist.