On 12/09/2010 02:04 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > On 12/09/2010 01:27 PM, Jiri Moskovcak wrote: >> On 12/09/2010 01:08 PM, "JÃhann B. GuÃmundsson" wrote: >>> On 12/09/2010 09:59 AM, Jiri Moskovcak wrote: >>>> Just a wild idea - ABRT detects the dupes even locally so we can make >>>> ABRT to allow reporting the bug to bz only if it happened more then >>>> once >>>> (or some other threshold):) >>> >>> Dont we loose hard to catch odd ball bugs if that's implemented? >>> >>> JBG >> >> yes, but those bugs are usually the reason why maintainers are >> complaining about ABRT.. > > Reporters also complain about this for the same reason: > > Reporters who are facing an ABRT alert, which complains about missing > 179 debuginfos (+ have to contact their sys admin to become root and run > debuginfo-install), who then notice that debuginfo-install installs only - debuginfo-install is just a fallback if ABRT fails to retrieve the debuginfo itself (and ABRT doesn't need the root privs, as is *does not* install the packages, it just unpacks them) the 179 dinfos reported by ABRT and 21 debuginfos downloaded is because ABRT reports the number of missing *debuginfo files*, but debuginfo-install reports number of *debuginfo packages* which can contain those 179 files... > 21 debuginfos, just to be finally able to submit a report, then notice > this report is worthless (no reproducer) and thus is very likely to be > will be ignored, isn't helpful to users either and drives them away from > ABRT. > ..and this should go away with the http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/RetraceServer To put out the coming flame before it starts - let's create other thread with subject "ABRT improvements" where everyone interested will write his RFE, I make a wiki page from it and then we can have a vote about priorities of those RFEs with the final word from FESCo... What do you think? Jirka -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
