On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 11:11:25AM +0100, Radek Vokal wrote: > On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 10:13 AM, Caolán McNamara <caolanm@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Sat, 2010-01-16 at 16:01 +0100, Christoph Wickert wrote: > >> I know that APRT is still very young technology, but after 2 months it's > >> time for a interim conclusion. For me the conclusions are: > > > > Abrt's getting a bit of a knocking in this thread, but I'm fairly happy > > with it myself, it's doing its job fairly well, and I prefer it over > > having no abrt. Its not abrt's fault that the crashes are happening :-) > > > > I'd definitely prefer that abrts went to a separate abrt-tracker where > > maintainers could sample the top X crashes for their apps rather than > > getting a bugzilla bug for each one. > > > > And I'd definitely prefer if the UI encouraged more verbose user input, > > e.g. start off the user with some sample text that says "At the time of > > the crash I was...." or something like that. Or a "help" link that sends > > them to see some successful examples. > > > > There are various things I'd like to see in the bug-report which abrt > > can't/doesn't give due to various concerns, but adding them in abrt-gui > > might be generally "close enough", e.g. GNOME vs KDE, gtk theme, X video > > driver in use, screen depth, whether a11y is enabled or not, which java > > alternative is active. > > An ABRT can easily provide that. It supports application specific > plugins where maintainer can specify conf files or other info that the > report should provide. Talk to Jiri or check fedorahosted.org/abrt for > more info. AFAIK both pkg-specific scripts (RunApp) and plugins are run from the daemon (they certainly were when I tried it last time). Unfortunately, we'd like to get informations from user session... D. -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
