ABRT opt-out (was Re: Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo meeting)

[Jiri Moskovcak]

On 12/09/2010 02:04 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 12/09/2010 01:27 PM, Jiri Moskovcak wrote:
>> On 12/09/2010 01:08 PM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
>>> On 12/09/2010 09:59 AM, Jiri Moskovcak wrote:
>>>> Just a wild idea - ABRT detects the dupes even locally so we can make
>>>> ABRT to allow reporting the bug to bz only if it happened more then
>>>> once
>>>> (or some other threshold):)
>>>
>>> Dont we loose hard to catch odd ball bugs if that's implemented?
>>>
>>> JBG
>>
>> yes, but those bugs are usually the reason why maintainers are
>> complaining about ABRT..
>
> Reporters also complain about this for the same reason:
>
> Reporters who are facing an ABRT alert, which complains about missing
> 179 debuginfos (+ have to contact their sys admin to become root and run
> debuginfo-install),  who then notice that debuginfo-install installs only

- debuginfo-install is just a fallback if ABRT fails to retrieve the 
debuginfo itself (and ABRT doesn't need the root privs, as is *does not* 
install the packages, it just unpacks them)

the 179 dinfos reported by ABRT and 21 debuginfos downloaded is because 
ABRT reports the number of missing *debuginfo files*, but 
debuginfo-install reports number of *debuginfo packages* which can 
contain those 179 files...

> 21 debuginfos, just to be finally able to submit a report, then notice
> this report is worthless (no reproducer) and thus is very likely to be
> will be ignored, isn't helpful to users either and drives them away from
> ABRT.
>

..and this should go away with the 
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/RetraceServer


To put out the coming flame before it starts - let's create other thread 
with subject "ABRT improvements" where everyone interested will write 
his RFE, I make a wiki page from it and then we can have a vote about 
priorities of those RFEs with the final word from FESCo... What do you 
think?

Jirka