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

[Ralf Corsepius]

On 12/09/2010 02:59 PM, Jiri Moskovcak wrote:
> 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)
?!?

It has never done so for me (on fedora 13 + fedora 14). ABRT always 
instructs me to run debuginfo-install, which will fail for obvious 
reasons in a normal user environment and thus requires me to become root 
(On "real ordinary user" systems I usually deinstall ABRT).

> 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...

Nope. ABRT complained about a huge number of missing debuginfo hashes.

[BTW: I am referring to a real world example: Yesterday, thunderbird 
crashed for me. I ended up with 21 debuginfo filling up my / partition 
and my report having been filed as a duplicate of in
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=656969].


> 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?
Good idea.

As you know, I consider ABRT to be a promissing idea, but am critical 
towards the current ABRT client side, which I, openly said, consider to 
be "mostly unusable".

Ralf