On 11/05/2010 05:41 PM, Matej Cepl wrote: > Orcan Ogetbil, Wed, 03 Nov 2010 21:02:02 -0400: >> Maybe it is time to discuss the usefulness of ABRT to Fedora. I think >> that it is a great idea for commercial products such as RHEL, but it >> obviously did not fit Fedora as is. >> >> From what I have seen, the maintainers are more responsive to manually >> filed bugs than to ABRT filed bugs (Am I wrong?). Apparently the current >> setup is driving users (such as the person in the above email) away who >> are otherwise willing to report bugs. This is not good. > > Have you ever tried to explain to reporter that he need to reproduce the > crash (which he has no idea how to do in the first place), then generate > the backtrace using gdb? I did, ABRT doesn't. It doesn't tell the user that core dumps without reproducer are worthless in most cases but blindly sends out reports Also, this produces incomplete traceback in many (IMO all) cases. > many times, and I think ABRT is a great > idea. I beg to differ ... It's an interesting idea, but still has to prove its viability and sustainability. I for one am having strong doubts. > Except for those duplicates .... ... and its arcane GUI ... and it being useless without GBs of spare diskspace and bandwidth [I just had a nautilus crash ... ABRT wanted to install ca. 100 debug infos. Please understand why I dod not report this crash] ... and it confronting/molesting un-educated/ordinary users who are not able or interested to cope with ABRT/bugzilla etc. [Do you expect a secretary for who Firefox just crashed to be wanting a redhat bugzilla account?] ... and many many other details. Ralf -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
