Dne 15.11.2010 23:04, Matthew Garrett napsal(a): > On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 05:01:30PM -0500, Colin Walters wrote: >> On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 4:13 PM, Matthew Garrett<mjg59@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Leaving the retracing at the user's end of things means that the user at > least has a choice in the matter - I'm unlikely to submit any firefox > crashes if I don't have an opportunity to look at what's in the > backtrace. We can make symbols available for local tracing without > forcing the user to download the entirity of the debuginfo, and that > would seem a more reasonable approach. > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/DebuginfoFS Agreed, debuginfofs will be better for many scenarios. Major advantage of the retrace server is that you can get a good backtraces even from unfresh coredumps. GDB needs access to the binary and dynamic libraries that were installed at the time of the crash when generating a backtrace. So if there was an update yesterday that installed new versions of several packages, it can happen that the backtrace can no longer be obtained from the coredump locally (without installing the old packages somewhere else). Retrace server installs packages that were used at the time of the crash, so the backtrace can be obtained. Major disadvantages of RS are that coredump upload takes time, 3rd party packages can't be easily supported, and users must trust the administrator. -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
