Kevin Kofler wrote: > Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus wrote: >> However, in the meantime I stopped reporting crashes via ABRT because I >> think it raises the load for a package maintainer to high while the >> report should go directly to upstream. Bothering the maintainer first >> instead of upstream is not the right thing to do. > > +1, in fact that's the biggest design failure in ABRT (in its current state) > and basically makes it useless. Gathering backtraces is something that needs > to be handled by upstream projects (like KDE does with KCrash/DrKonqi), not > distributions. Some maintainers fix crashes in their packages and then send the fixes to the upstream, and some don't. Some crashes are caused by distribution-specific environment, and some are not :) It's not clear whether we should report crashes directly to the upstream. For some packages, reporting upstream could work well (Firefox, OpenOffice.org come to my mind). However, many packages have unresponsive/dead upstream, upstream without issue tracker etc. See rhbz#532307 for a beautiful example of cross-package bugfixing, which is very hard to do in upstream. At least eight applications will be fixed at the end (e.g. #542277, #547030, #550165, #558329, #561592, #561059) Karel -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
