On Fri, 2010-01-22 at 16:24 -0800, Rick Stevens wrote: > > Given that abrt is designed to make bug-reporting easier for the > average > > user, I suspect a lot of b/w is being consumed by these downloads > that > > would not otherwise be the case. Would it not be an idea to rethink > how > > this is handled? By definition abrt already knows exactly which > packages > > are involved in the problem, so it could simply report what they are > and > > add the coredumps/logs/whatever. > Ah, but which version of the program were you running when abrt kicked > in? To diagnose a failure, the maintainers need as much info as then > can get about the specifics of the program that failed (what files had > been loaded, where the program pooped, what was the status of the > stack, lots of things). That's all in the coredump, which as I said would still be added to the report. If abrt knows enough to download debuginfo packages, it follows that it knows enough to give a list of what's needed without having to download them. > Ideally, yes, abrt could report the version of the program and make > the maintainers go and get the debug info, but there would be big > holes in their visibility as to what made YOUR instance crap out. Apart from the coredump, logs and my description of what happened, there is absolutely nothing that I can send them that they can't in principle get for themselves. poc -- users mailing list users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
