On 04/13/2016 02:12 PM, Rui Tiago Cação Matos wrote:
On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 10:49 PM, Michael Catanzaro
> Second, my understanding is
> that the ABRT developers prefer to improve abrt-cli and tell people to
> use that rather than coredumpctl.
Any particular reason for that preference? As coredumpctl gets more
and more widespread, having the same tool as other distros should make
Fedora more approachable which I think is a good thing?
User experience is the reason why I prefer improving abrt CLI.
coredumpctl handles only coredump files, abrt-cli (or rather 'abrt' - a
brand new tool that should replace abrt-cli) handles more problem types
- coredumps, Kernel oopses, Python exceptions, Java exceptions, Ruby
abrt can do pretty much everything as coredumpctl can do (BTW it can run
'gdb'). Besides, it can install missing debuginfo packages, generate
backtrace using a remote server, report the problem to Bugzilla, upload
it , etc., because it can re-use ABRT infrastructure.
I don't say abrt is perfect and it desperately needs more love.
ABRT's purpose has changed. It used to be a set of tools for reporting
problems caused by system packages, but, now, we are looking on how to
make ABRT more useful for developers. Perhaps, you do not see much
progress on this goal, but that is only because we have very limited