I don't want to answer all of the messages, so I'll try to sum all of it
in this one...
On 02/05/2010 09:46 PM, Christoph Wickert wrote:
What's wrong with ABRT? ALl the backtraces I get are unusable again. If
Thunar crashes, not even Thunar-debuginfo gets installed.
abrt 1.0 worked here, then came 1.0.2 which was broken. 1.0.3 was
working again, but got superseded be 1.0.4 only a few of days later.
This means that most of the time, all the bugs submitted are basically
useless.
Unfortunately that's true, it was different problem every time, but the
result is the useless backtrace. This shouldn't happen anymore as we now
have more extensive testing before releasing a new version.
For me as the maintainer it is a lot of work to reply to all these
useless reports and for our users it's just frustrating if all their
reports get closed INSUFFICIENT_DATA.
If the current situation is really so bad, we can auto-close all of the
bugs reported by the broken versions of ABRT, because I guess they would
just sit there until bugzapping period.
If the situation doesn't change any time soon, we IMHO should consider
disabling abrt until the issues are fixed.
It's already fixed in 1.0.6, which sits in testing repo. In F12 there is
a pending kernel update which (if gets to F12 without change) will
prevent ABRT from detecting C/C++ apps crashes, so it will probably make
abrt silent for a while.
Now some answers for issues mentioned in this thread:
ABRT doesn't work by design:
- it actually does work, but it's bug detection/analyse is too general
for some apps, this is something we know about and it's not in our
powers to fix (it's not even considered a bug). This is actually the
reason why is ABRT extendible by plugins and every devel who maintains
some bigger app can write it's own abrt plugin to make the reports to
suit his needs. If devel doesn't want to get ABRT reports at all, he can
always send me an email and it can be added to ABRT blacklist.
I feel the Fedora community is being abused to evaluate a
semi-functional piece of SW's "yet uncooked" concepts:
- tha ABRT's concept is used for a while in other distros and ABRT
itself is in Fedora since F10, but nobody cared to take a look at it and
add some comments/ideas. I don't want to start a fight about
non-finished apps in Fedora, but I won't silently ignore it, I remeber
quite well the how finished and stable was the last major release of one
of the major desktop environment or I remember times when I had to use
web mail instead of my favourite client to write an email, because it
wasn't stable (and both were in stable Fedora release).
Nice idea. IMO it should only allow to submit reports after some sanity
checks:
- ABRT uses the code from Dr.Konqui to rate the backtrace and doesn't
allow user to send it if the rate is bellow 3 (the scale is 0-4), but
the bug in GUI let user to send even the bad BT.
I believe ABRT shouldn't file a bug report unless it is filled in
properly:
- we can change to GUI, so it won't let users fill a report without
providing a steps to reproduce
History tells, low quality automated bug reports to be ignored and to
cause a lot of bad blood. Debian for instance has an unfortunate history
in doing so - You're better off to learn from their historic mistake:
- times changes, Linux is now used by people who actually use it for
work not for the "fun of using Linux" and these people doesn't want to
spend time going thru bugzilla and filling some report. Yes, I agree we
should learn and in this we should learn from someone more desktop
oriented then Debian (maybe even from some non-Linux os??)
What needs to be fixed here is bugzilla not ABRT, we need a "report
upstream" button:
- the best would be to fix both. what we need to ease the life of
maintainers is a middle layer between ABRT (users) and
bugzilla(developers) something like mozilla
has(http://crash-stats.mozilla.com/).
Surely you're not suggesting holding up a decent kernel from going to
stable while waiting for Abrt ?
- there is no need to wait for ABRT when talking about the pending
kernel update update for F12, there is nothing what ABRT can do to work
with that kernel.
Anyway, there should be a tool in ABRT suite, that allows a package
maintainer to reconstruct a complete backtrace from an incomplete on,
using only the list of involved packages, with there evr(+arch):
- you can never get the whole BT without a coredump - you can get
recreating should be a matter of a simple script and we can provide it
as part of ABRT if devels would use it.
I hope I've cleared few things and will be happy to answer any of you
further questions and RFEs.
Jirka
begin:vcard
fn:Jiri Moskovcak
n:Moskovcak;Jiri
email;internet:jmoskovc@xxxxxxxxxx
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
version:2.1
end:vcard
--
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
