On Sat, 2010-04-03 at 12:07 -0400, Christopher Beland wrote: > Hearing no objections, I updated the language at: > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/StockBugzillaResponses#No_Debugging_Symbols > > -B. > > On Fri, 2010-04-02 at 16:19 -0400, Christopher Beland wrote: > > It looks like things have gone a bit awry with this triage: > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=575030 > > > > ABRT's automatically reported backtrace didn't include debugging > > symbols, but the triager used the stock message here: > > > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/StockBugzillaResponses#No_Stack_Trace > > > > I was going to change that stock response to advise triagers that they > > should not use it in the case of automatically generated backtraces from > > ABRT. ABRT should have installed the required debuginfo packages > > automatically, and the fact that it didn't means there's a bug in ABRT > > (or a supporting package). > > > > I'm thinking the right thing for the triager to do is to apologize for > > the system not collecting enough information to diagnose the crash, and > > assign the bug to ABRT (or the appropriate supporting package) so that > > future crashes can be diagnosed properly. Does that sound reasonable? I was on vacation since Friday :) I'd say you're mostly on the right track, but I'd rather we explain to the reporter how to manually install the correct debug packages (with debuginfo-install) to generate a useful traceback for the crash (debuginfo-install, then re-generate the crash report in abrt), and ask them to report a bug against abrt _as well_. I don't think we want to lose the initial crash report. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net -- test mailing list test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
