Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Le mardi 24 avril 2007 à 12:58 +0200, Reinhard Tartler a écrit : >> Ben Hutchings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >> > Installing debugging symbols for all binaries involved in a crash >> > seems... heavyweight. I would expect the user to want to get on with >> > his or her work at this point. >> > >> > Wouldn't it be better - in terms of response rate - to take a >> > "minidump" (along the lines of Windows error reporting or Mozilla's >> > Quality Feedback Agent) and do symbol lookup on some central server? >> >> isn't this quite similar to what ubuntu is doing with Apport? >> >> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Apport > > Apport sends complete core dumps, which is a very bad idea. The dumps > can be huge (for desktop applications they often grow beyond 200MB) and > they can contain gazillions of sensitive information.
Sending core dumps is of course debatable, espec. if you cannot assert that no sensitive information is transmitted. Still, Apport is more than that. It also describes the mechanism of debug packages (*.ddeb), which are generated automatically at build time. > Using a central server for symbol lookup like Ben proposed looks like a > better idea. It needs gdb to be adapted or wrapped to access them > correctly, though. Sure. How about generating ddebs like ubuntu at build time, upload them to ftp-master along the regular binary packages, and install them in a special section on the ftp servers. This way not all mirrors need to serve the ddebs. We can still leave the choice: sending in core dumps to some centralised service which retraces them, or use provided tools so users can download the debug data and retrace their crashed on their own. -- Gruesse/greetings, Reinhard Tartler, KeyID 945348A4 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
