On 12/12/2010 06:10 AM, Dave Jones wrote: > On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 02:11:27AM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote: > > Dave Jones wrote: > > > > > On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 12:45:10PM +0100, Jiri Moskovcak wrote: > > > > > > > The problem here is that some maintainers doesn't want ABRT reports at > > > > all even those not yet reported... > > > > > > It's arguable that such people are 'maintainers' at all if this is the > > > case. I find it quite sad that we have packagers who don't care about the > > > quality of what they are packaging beyond the specfile. > > > > â says the maintainer of the one package in Fedora for which ABRT reports > > the bugs directly upstream. > > I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, but there's a pretty big difference > between completely ignoring automatically filed bugs (regardless of where they're filed), > and automatically filing those bugs upstream. > > Apropos of nothing: kerneloops reporting seems to have been broken ever since > we switched from using the kerneloops client to abrt, but that's another story.. - I reported quite a few oops using abrt (even found them on the koops server), but it's quite some time since I checked if it's still working, I'll test that tmrw > > Dave > -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
