On Thu, 01 Mar 2018 19:30:28 +0100, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 03:04:11PM +0100, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
> > On Fri, 16 Feb 2018 11:02:25 +0100, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
> > It seems to me interactive crash core file analysis is just not a goal of
> > ABRT
> > (which is what was the goal of darkserver).
> Did it ever meet this goal?
I do not know.
> I never quite understood how it works, being far from this field, so I'm happy
> to be enlighten on the topic.
Darkserver itself will just give you a rpm build for given build-id. So with
a core file (containing the build-ids) and a small shell script you can
reconstruct system (chroot) where you can load the core file for more thorough
> > And currently after my reassignment in Red Hat I currently do not have any
> > ABRT bugreports to investigate so I am currently not involved in this
> > darkserver/ABRT build-id crash reproducibility (I may be again later).
> Would you know if anyone in your old team would be interested by this?
It is not specific to GDB team. I am curious how all the Fedora package
developers deal with ABRT-filed Bugs where the backtrace contained therein is
not sufficient to understand the problem but one may be able to understand it
accessing more data with GDB using the core file.
The backtrace contained in the ABRT bugreport can rarely really debug the
problem. Sure even the core file is not always sufficient but it gives more
chance to debug the crash (which requires an darkserver-like functionality).
But then I usually cannot get even just the core file from ABRT users so this
is why I ask how other package (*) maintainers deal with the ABRT bugreports.
(*) It may be confusing I am GDB package maintainer when GDB is used for the
crash analysis. But here I talk about GDB as any other program (like bash,
firefox etc.) as even GDB crashes like any other program (bash, firefox, etc.).
> I'm trying to assess if there is actually an interest for it.
> You said you were interested by it but aren't working on this topic anymore, I
> don't think anybody else than you noticed it not working over the course of
Yes, because I think nobody knows one could troubleshoot ABRT-bugreported
problems better than with the information filed by ABRT into Bugzilla.
> So I wonder if we shouldn't just call it a day,
It won't change the current state of bugs troubleshooting.
But Fedora should not forget the Bugs troubleshooting could be improved.
devel mailing list -- email@example.com
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org