Changing stock response re: lack of debugging symbols with ABRT

[Adam Williamson]

On Sat, 2010-04-03 at 12:07 -0400, Christopher Beland wrote:
> Hearing no objections, I updated the language at:
> 
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/StockBugzillaResponses#No_Debugging_Symbols
> 
> -B.
> 
> On Fri, 2010-04-02 at 16:19 -0400, Christopher Beland wrote:
> > It looks like things have gone a bit awry with this triage:
> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=575030
> > 
> > ABRT's automatically reported backtrace didn't include debugging
> > symbols, but the triager used the stock message here:
> > 
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/StockBugzillaResponses#No_Stack_Trace
> > 
> > I was going to change that stock response to advise triagers that they
> > should not use it in the case of automatically generated backtraces from
> > ABRT.  ABRT should have installed the required debuginfo packages
> > automatically, and the fact that it didn't means there's a bug in ABRT
> > (or a supporting package).  
> > 
> > I'm thinking the right thing for the triager to do is to apologize for
> > the system not collecting enough information to diagnose the crash, and
> > assign the bug to ABRT (or the appropriate supporting package) so that
> > future crashes can be diagnosed properly.  Does that sound reasonable?

I was on vacation since Friday :)

I'd say you're mostly on the right track, but I'd rather we explain to
the reporter how to manually install the correct debug packages (with
debuginfo-install) to generate a useful traceback for the crash
(debuginfo-install, then re-generate the crash report in abrt), and ask
them to report a bug against abrt _as well_. I don't think we want to
lose the initial crash report.
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
http://www.happyassassin.net