ABRT considered painful
Michael Schwendt
mschwendt at gmail.com
Fri Jan 1 17:58:10 UTC 2010
On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 22:04:59 +0100, Kevin wrote:
> > What's wrong with ABRT?
>
> My main beef with it is that it reports its crashes to the downstream bug
> tracker when really the right people to fix them are the upstream
> developers. KCrash/DrKonqi is much better there.
Well, upstream would want detailed backtraces, too.
$ grep "Debuginfo absent" attachment.cgi\?id\=381101 | wc -l
188
$ grep "No symb" attachment.cgi\?id\=381101 | wc -l
64
Those 188+64 lines are half of the backtrace attachment already
$ cat attachment.cgi\?id\=381101 | wc -l
517
| Debuginfo absent: 0011710bbf8990924b6dd2b256219d5682db6515
Instead of logging 188 missing debuginfo hashes which isn't useful, better
log human-readable package EVRs. That would tell more about what package
versions a reporter used.
More information about the fedora-devel-list
mailing list