Simo Sorce wrote:
> Abrt looks clearly a better solution.
I disagree.
>From a technical standpoint, working on core files means you have to dump
core and then attach to the core file after the fact when you could just
backtrace right when the crash happened. A waste of disk space, and a
security risk (you're making RAM contents persistent, and ABRT even allows
you to upload them to a public bug tracker!).
>From a practical standpoint, ABRT is a distro-level solution which reports
to the distro bug tracker rather than an upstream solution. Isn't Fedora
about working with upstream? This also implies we need to triage all the
ABRT bugs and forward them upstream (because the kind of users who files
reports through ABRT most definitely won't report it upstream themselves).
It also means that ABRT doesn't have access to the KAboutData information
(application name, version, bug tracker or e-mail address to use etc.),
whereas KCrash intercepts the crash from within the application (where that
data is available) and passes all that information to DrKonqi. In my
experience, bugs we receive from ABRT usually just bitrot, bugs filed
upstream by DrKonqi stand a much higher chance to actually get fixed.
Kevin Kofler
--
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
