ABRT unusable again

[Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus]

On So, 2010-02-07 at 12:52 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
[...]
> There is an analogy actually. Regardless of whether the Fedora Project
> consists of many volunteers, who do unpaid stuff in their spare time,
> Fedora delivers a product and will have to deal with its consumers and
> negative feedback. The fact that the product is free (as in "free beer")
> should not imply that it is worse than a commercial product. 

I completely agree and most open source software proofs that, but this
was not the question. The question was if the package maintainer should
be triggered first instead of upstream which increases the load for the
package maintainer who might not be able to handle all of these requests
in the end because it is not his/her full time job.

> It's clear that if upstream software quality is poor and if nobody works
> on improving the software, it is more difficult for the Fedora packager to
> deliver quality. To shrug one's shoulders in reply to problem reports is
> the wrong way, however. And the more problem reports, the more important
> it gets to do something. As a last resort, software could get retired and
> removed from "The Product".

This is at least a good point to me. ABRT might point out software which
needs more attention. If it is not possible to provide the needed power,
then the package should be removed to keep the expected stability of
Fedora.

cheers,
Stefan