On 08/17/2010 01:11 PM, drago01 wrote:
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 5:01 PM, Colin
Walters<walters(a)verbum.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'd like to propose a general rule that ABRT crash logs should remain
> "assigned" to the actual application, unless an actual investigation
> has been done and there's a "reasonable" certainty the flaw is in the
> library code in which it happened to crash.
>
> Rationale: Applications are more likely to be buggy (I'm just
> asserting this, but it seems obvious), and just because a crash
> happened inside the library, particularly when C/C++ is involved,
> means nothing; the flaw could still be in the application. If we
> reassign them, it's harder to make all crashes for an application
> visible.
>
> I'm fine with being added to a CC list, but reassigning is more of a mess.
>
> Sample crash:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=624098
Hah I proposed the opposite here:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=603289 ... in my case I
get lots of compiz bugs that a clearly mesa / driver bugs and all I
can do do is to reassign them.
I got tired of doing that so I filed said bug.
Since there's no systematic way of figuring out if it's the app or the
library, perhaps the bug should be filed against both? I don't think
Bugzilla allows specifying two components for the same bug so it would
have to be two separate bugs, which sounds heavy-handed. Two mitigating
circumstances are:
- abrt would only do it if the stack trace clearly indicates that a
library is involved
- bug reviewers can quickly close the superfluous one