FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > CentOS > CentOS Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 11-26-2010, 05:44 PM
Karanbir Singh
 
Default handling ABRT

hi,

EL6 now includes abrt ( https://fedorahosted.org/abrt/ ), which is setup
to talk with bugzilla.r.c and comes with a plugin that allows details
passed to rhsupport. We dont really want either of those two things to
happen. So we can either :

- Remove abrt completely ( might not be the best overall solution, but
it would surely be the fastest short term target )

- Leave abrt in the distro, but disable chatter abilities with anything
*.r.c; and *.fedoraproject.org ( that leaves functionality partially
intact, but local implementations would need to adopt and go with
whatever they want / need; this solution might not be as nice as the
last option)

- Last option: get a plugin together that can do what's needed to file
at bugs.c.o ( we might need a few more people to get involved with
triage and handling of issues via that route! )

Who wants to take on the task of handling abrt, getting the work done
and driving this issue into CentOS-6 ? Being able to code in python
might not be optional..

- KB
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 11-26-2010, 05:52 PM
Yoinier Hernandez Nieves
 
Default handling ABRT

El 26/11/10 13:44, Karanbir Singh escribió:
> hi,
>
> EL6 now includes abrt ( https://fedorahosted.org/abrt/ ), which is setup
> to talk with bugzilla.r.c and comes with a plugin that allows details
> passed to rhsupport. We dont really want either of those two things to
> happen. So we can either :
>
> - Remove abrt completely ( might not be the best overall solution, but
> it would surely be the fastest short term target )
>
> - Leave abrt in the distro, but disable chatter abilities with anything
> *.r.c; and *.fedoraproject.org ( that leaves functionality partially
> intact, but local implementations would need to adopt and go with
> whatever they want / need; this solution might not be as nice as the
> last option)
>
> - Last option: get a plugin together that can do what's needed to file
> at bugs.c.o ( we might need a few more people to get involved with
> triage and handling of issues via that route! )
>
+1, nice option. I like help. That is a way for manage bugs of the CentOS.

> Who wants to take on the task of handling abrt, getting the work done
> and driving this issue into CentOS-6 ? Being able to code in python
> might not be optional..
>
> - KB
> _______________________________________________
> CentOS-devel mailing list
> CentOS-devel@centos.org
> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
>
>


--
Yoinier Hernández Nieves.
Administrador de Redes.
Nodo Provincial Teico Las Tunas.



_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 11-26-2010, 06:07 PM
Fabian Arrotin
 
Default handling ABRT

Karanbir Singh wrote:
> hi,
>
> <snip>
>
> Who wants to take on the task of handling abrt, getting the work done
> and driving this issue into CentOS-6 ? Being able to code in python
> might not be optional..
>

Due to the fact that there are still lots of thing to do for a CentOS
6.0 release, i don't think that putting extra work (by providing a
specific centos plugin package for abrt that will delay/postpone the
release) at this time is the best idea.
I do like the idea of having abrt working for next release, aka 6.1
though. Now that the problem/issue was identified and that a correct fix
implies development (not a single patch), i'd rather see it postponed
than the whole distro.
My personal thought though :-)


--
--
Fabian Arrotin



_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 11-26-2010, 06:14 PM
Karanbir Singh
 
Default handling ABRT

On 11/26/2010 07:07 PM, Fabian Arrotin wrote:
> I do like the idea of having abrt working for next release, aka 6.1
> though. Now that the problem/issue was identified and that a correct fix
> implies development (not a single patch), i'd rather see it postponed
> than the whole distro.

I would be happy with that personally. But I *would* like to take steps
to make sure that CentOS installs dont hit resources not hosted at
*.centos.org

- KB
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 11-26-2010, 06:17 PM
Karanbir Singh
 
Default handling ABRT

Hi Yoinier,

On 11/26/2010 06:52 PM, Yoinier Hernandez Nieves wrote:
>> - Last option: get a plugin together that can do what's needed to file
>> at bugs.c.o ( we might need a few more people to get involved with
>> triage and handling of issues via that route! )
>>
> +1, nice option. I like help. That is a way for manage bugs of the CentOS.

Thanks for offering to help - Going by your response I am going to
assume you are offering to help/write the plugin to have ABRT work with
mantis.

Please make sure you have an account on bugs.c.o and let me know, I'll
assign http://bugs.centos.org/view.php?id=4647 to you. Also, if you need
any sort of resources please shout out.

- KB
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 11-26-2010, 06:19 PM
David Hrbáč
 
Default handling ABRT

Dne 26.11.2010 20:07, Fabian Arrotin napsal(a):
> Karanbir Singh wrote:
> Due to the fact that there are still lots of thing to do for a CentOS
> 6.0 release, i don't think that putting extra work (by providing a
> specific centos plugin package for abrt that will delay/postpone the
> release) at this time is the best idea.

I'd stick with bugzilla instance.
- upstream provides updates for abrt<->bz integration
- it's working now, we need only bz instance
- no need for someone to track upstream and implement changes downstream
DH
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 11-26-2010, 06:21 PM
Fabian Arrotin
 
Default handling ABRT

Karanbir Singh wrote:
> On 11/26/2010 07:07 PM, Fabian Arrotin wrote:
>> I do like the idea of having abrt working for next release, aka 6.1
>> though. Now that the problem/issue was identified and that a correct fix
>> implies development (not a single patch), i'd rather see it postponed
>> than the whole distro.
>
> I would be happy with that personally. But I *would* like to take steps
> to make sure that CentOS installs dont hit resources not hosted at
> *.centos.org
>

Is abrt running during anaconda install process ? i know that it's the
case in beta2refresh but don't know if it is in 6.0 GA. That would
indeed mean that abrt should still be built and provided with centos 6.0
and so maybe just disabling/identifying what needs to be done just to be
sure that it doesn't hit @redhat.com machines.
But i'm still thinking that the specific abrt plugin to report bugs in
the centos mantis bug report system should be postponed, except if a
python guru can write it in 2 minutes and that it can be tested directly
in the QA process.


--
--
Fabian Arrotin



_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 11-26-2010, 06:21 PM
Karanbir Singh
 
Default handling ABRT

On 11/26/2010 07:19 PM, David Hrbáč wrote:
> I'd stick with bugzilla instance.
> - upstream provides updates for abrt<->bz integration
> - it's working now, we need only bz instance
> - no need for someone to track upstream and implement changes downstream

Not entire sure if upstream would be happy to have that in, and once we
release something - its quite hard to completely remove it from the wild.

I guess its a question we can ask

- KB
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 11-26-2010, 06:25 PM
Karanbir Singh
 
Default handling ABRT

On 11/26/2010 07:21 PM, Fabian Arrotin wrote:
>> I would be happy with that personally. But I *would* like to take steps
>> to make sure that CentOS installs dont hit resources not hosted at
>> *.centos.org
> But i'm still thinking that the specific abrt plugin to report bugs in
> the centos mantis bug report system should be postponed, except if a
> python guru can write it in 2 minutes and that it can be tested directly
> in the QA process.

Aologies for not being clear on this - but that's mostly what I meant;
we can retain abrt but disable it from hitting non .centos.org places;
in the mean time do the work for making abrt work against bugs.c.o and
ship that once its ready.

Lets see what Yoinier comes back with. He will almost certainly need to
look at both the bits of code and then do an estimate on how much work
is needed and how long its likely to take. We would / could then decide
on the 6.0/6.1 timeline.

- KB
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 11-26-2010, 06:27 PM
Fabian Arrotin
 
Default handling ABRT

Karanbir Singh wrote:
> On 11/26/2010 07:19 PM, David Hrbá?? wrote:
>> I'd stick with bugzilla instance.
>> - upstream provides updates for abrt<->bz integration
>> - it's working now, we need only bz instance

Well, a second reading on David's post leads me to the conclusion that
he wanted to report to bugzilla, but not upstream :-)

>> - no need for someone to track upstream and implement changes downstream
>
> Not entire sure if upstream would be happy to have that in, and once we
> release something - its quite hard to completely remove it from the wild.
>
> I guess its a question we can ask
>

If we could only redirect to something like bugzilla.centos.org (for the
abrt stuff) instead of upstream's bugzilla, that would be fine. There
would still be a process of sorting real bugs from that bz instance and
report them in mantis and/or upstream too :/

--
--
Fabian Arrotin



_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 03:33 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright ©2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org