rc040203 at freenet.de
Fri Nov 5 16:56:51 UTC 2010
On 11/05/2010 05:41 PM, Matej Cepl wrote:
> Orcan Ogetbil, Wed, 03 Nov 2010 21:02:02 -0400:
>> Maybe it is time to discuss the usefulness of ABRT to Fedora. I think
>> that it is a great idea for commercial products such as RHEL, but it
>> obviously did not fit Fedora as is.
>> From what I have seen, the maintainers are more responsive to manually
>> filed bugs than to ABRT filed bugs (Am I wrong?). Apparently the current
>> setup is driving users (such as the person in the above email) away who
>> are otherwise willing to report bugs. This is not good.
> Have you ever tried to explain to reporter that he need to reproduce the
> crash (which he has no idea how to do in the first place), then generate
> the backtrace using gdb? I did,
It doesn't tell the user that core dumps without reproducer are
worthless in most cases but blindly sends out reports
Also, this produces incomplete traceback in many (IMO all) cases.
> many times, and I think ABRT is a great
I beg to differ ... It's an interesting idea, but still has to prove its
viability and sustainability. I for one am having strong doubts.
> Except for those duplicates ....
... and its arcane GUI
... and it being useless without GBs of spare diskspace and bandwidth
[I just had a nautilus crash ... ABRT wanted to install ca. 100 debug
infos. Please understand why I dod not report this crash]
... and it confronting/molesting un-educated/ordinary users who are not
able or interested to cope with ABRT/bugzilla etc.
[Do you expect a secretary for who Firefox just crashed to be wanting a
redhat bugzilla account?]
... and many many other details.
More information about the devel