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 > Redhat > Fedora Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 02-06-2010, 04:42 PM
Laurent Rineau
 
Default ABRT unusable again

Le samedi 06 février 2010 15:53:03, Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus a écrit :
> On Sa, 2010-02-06 at 14:08 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> [...]
>
> > I'm happy about every detailed backtrace I get, but I would be even more
> > happy if users contributed a tiny bit more and added comments to their
> > tickets and responded to NEEDINFO queries and gave feedback on Test
> > Updates. ABRT has lowered the hurdle so much that people dump generated
> > reports into bugzilla but otherwise they appear like /dev/null and only
> > show rarely that they care about a package.
>
> On the one hand I agree with you on the other hand I see it from an
> users point of view and feel a bit in a pickle. For example, every
> second login gnome-panel crashes, removes Gnote from the panel and ABRT
> shows me a core dump. I cannot reproduce this problem except from a
> logout and login. So I cannot provide a detailed description what was
> going on and how to reproduce it (except as I already said: logout and
> login). But since it crashes that frequently I decided to report it
> anyway just in the hope that the package maintainer sees from the
> backtrace what is going wrong. Maybe this is not the best thing to do
> but after a couple of weeks seeing the red flash light several times a
> day you go crazy ;-)

Same for me. I reported a crash in abrt-gui, without knowing what has caused
it, with the hope that the maintainer can understand that from the backtrace.


--
Laurent Rineau
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/LaurentRineau
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 02-06-2010, 04:45 PM
Laurent Rineau
 
Default ABRT unusable again

Le samedi 06 février 2010 18:03:23, Karel Klic a écrit :
> Christoph Wickert wrote:
> > What's wrong with ABRT? ALl the backtraces I get are unusable again. If
> > Thunar crashes, not even Thunar-debuginfo gets installed.
>
> There is a flaw in ABRT 1.0.4, which allows to submit incomplete
> backtraces. It got into the source code during the GUI rewrite.

Anyway, there should be a tool in ABRT suite, that allows a package maintainer
to reconstruct a complete backtrace from an incomplete on, using only the list
of involved packages, with there evr(+arch).

--
Laurent Rineau
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/LaurentRineau
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 02-06-2010, 04:53 PM
Kevin Kofler
 
Default ABRT unusable again

Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus wrote:
> However, in the meantime I stopped reporting crashes via ABRT because I
> think it raises the load for a package maintainer to high while the
> report should go directly to upstream. Bothering the maintainer first
> instead of upstream is not the right thing to do.

+1, in fact that's the biggest design failure in ABRT (in its current state)
and basically makes it useless. Gathering backtraces is something that needs
to be handled by upstream projects (like KDE does with KCrash/DrKonqi), not
distributions.

Kevin Kofler

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 02-06-2010, 04:56 PM
Kevin Kofler
 
Default ABRT unusable again

Michael Schwendt wrote:
> I'm happy about every detailed backtrace I get, but I would be even more
> happy if users contributed a tiny bit more and added comments to their
> tickets and responded to NEEDINFO queries and gave feedback on Test
> Updates. ABRT has lowered the hurdle so much that people dump generated
> reports into bugzilla but otherwise they appear like /dev/null and only
> show rarely that they care about a package.

Requests to report the crash upstream usually also fall on deaf ears (when
all they'd really need to do is copy&paste the generated text and a link to
the attached backtrace into the upstream bug tracker).

Without some mechanism to either make ABRT file bugs directly upstream or
automatically forward them (in a way which keeps the reporter in the loop,
in the hope that they might actually care!), it's basically useless.

There's no way I can fix the dozens of crashes in Gnash myself.

Kevin Kofler

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 02-06-2010, 05:19 PM
Mathieu Bridon
 
Default ABRT unusable again

On Sat, Feb 6, 2010 at 18:03, Karel Klic <kklic@redhat.com> wrote:
> It became better with later releases, but the bug you described made it
> bad again (for this release).
>
> As far as I can tell, the last large-scale change (the new GUI) was
> finished in 1.0.4. It introduced some bugs, but those are fixed now.

Was it really a good idea to push it to a stable release of Fedora if
it was such a « large-scale change » ?


----------
Mathieu Bridon
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 02-06-2010, 05:27 PM
drago01
 
Default ABRT unusable again

On Sat, Feb 6, 2010 at 6:56 PM, Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler@chello.at> wrote:
> Michael Schwendt wrote:
>> I'm happy about every detailed backtrace I get, but I would be even more
>> happy if users contributed a tiny bit more and added comments to their
>> tickets and responded to NEEDINFO queries and gave feedback on Test
>> Updates. *ABRT has lowered the hurdle so much that people dump generated
>> reports into bugzilla but otherwise they appear like /dev/null and only
>> show rarely that they care about a package.
>
> Requests to report the crash upstream usually also fall on deaf ears (when
> all they'd really need to do is copy&paste the generated text and a link to
> the attached backtrace into the upstream bug tracker).
>
> Without some mechanism to either make ABRT file bugs directly upstream or
> automatically forward them (in a way which keeps the reporter in the loop,
> in the hope that they might actually care!), it's basically useless.
>
> There's no way I can fix the dozens of crashes in Gnash myself.

Well reports should go to the maintainer first, he should forward it
to upstream as needed.

What needs to be fixed here is bugzilla not ABRT, we need a "report
upstream" button.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 02-06-2010, 06:18 PM
Christoph Wickert
 
Default ABRT unusable again

Am Samstag, den 06.02.2010, 19:27 +0100 schrieb drago01:

> Well reports should go to the maintainer first, he should forward it
> to upstream as needed.

I disagree. Basically there are two situations:
1. The backtrace or the bug report is incomplete. In 95% of these
cases submitters don't bother to provide any more info and the
bug gets closed INSUFFICIENT_DATA. This should not get filed
upstream at all, nether in Fedora, not somewhere upstream.
2. The backtrace is fine and self-explanatory for the developer. In
this case it should go directly to upstream.

> What needs to be fixed here is bugzilla not ABRT, we need a "report
> upstream" button.

Ok, and where is the "submit downstream" button in upstream's bug
tracker? The Fedora maintainer still will have to forward replies,
questions, calls for testing etc. from upstream back to the user and
this is a lot of work.

Regards,
Christoph

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 02-06-2010, 06:23 PM
Christoph Wickert
 
Default ABRT unusable again

Am Samstag, den 06.02.2010, 16:22 +0100 schrieb Till Maas:
> On Sat, Feb 06, 2010 at 12:23:31PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:

> > +1. ABRT is just broken in so many ways it's not even funny and should never
> > have been shipped in its current state.
>
> For yum related python backtrace bugs, it worked pretty well here and
> made bug reporting a lot easier. So maybe it should only be activated
> for cases where additional debuginfo is not needed.

Nice idea. IMO it should only allow to submit reports after some sanity
checks. In my case where Thunar crashed and Thunar-debuginfo (and I have
lots of these for other package as well) was not installed, it certainly
would not have passed these tests.

> Regards
> Till

Regards,
Christoph

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 02-06-2010, 07:01 PM
Thomas Spura
 
Default ABRT unusable again

Am Samstag, den 06.02.2010, 20:18 +0100 schrieb Christoph Wickert:
> Am Samstag, den 06.02.2010, 19:27 +0100 schrieb drago01:
> > What needs to be fixed here is bugzilla not ABRT, we need a "report
> > upstream" button.
>
> Ok, and where is the "submit downstream" button in upstream's bug
> tracker? The Fedora maintainer still will have to forward replies,
> questions, calls for testing etc. from upstream back to the user and
> this is a lot of work.

Maybe he wants to have our bugzilla and upstreams bugzilla connected, so
that the developer can directly talk to the reporter and propose a fix,
that the maintainer can submit to the testing repos.
Not a bad idea.

Thomas

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 02-06-2010, 07:16 PM
Neil Horman
 
Default ABRT unusable again

On Sat, Feb 06, 2010 at 06:53:31PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus wrote:
> > However, in the meantime I stopped reporting crashes via ABRT because I
> > think it raises the load for a package maintainer to high while the
> > report should go directly to upstream. Bothering the maintainer first
> > instead of upstream is not the right thing to do.
>
> +1, in fact that's the biggest design failure in ABRT (in its current state)
> and basically makes it useless. Gathering backtraces is something that needs
> to be handled by upstream projects (like KDE does with KCrash/DrKonqi), not
> distributions.
>
> Kevin Kofler
>
Seems like upstream projects managing app specific captures leads to either
framentation of the capture method, or a lack of scalability (1 app per app to
collect dumps for that app).

Might be better to have the bugzilla maintainers look at xml proxy methods to
forward abrt captured backtraces to specific upstream project logging sites.

Neil

> --
> devel mailing list
> devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 01:42 AM.

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