Steve Grubb wrote:
> This brings up an interesting tangent (sorry), which I've asked on the KDE
> list with no answer.
Do not expect an answer from me on the k...@lists.fp.o list, as I have been
(IMHO unfairly) banned from all KDE SIG communication channels.
> When kontact segfaults, and it does a lot, it starts Dr. Konqi and asks if
> you want to file a report. But because debuginfo rpms are not installed it
> fails and says not enough info to file a report.
That is not what is supposed to happen. DrKonqi has had support for
installing debugging information for years. What it does is that it runs a
shell script that will attempt to install missing debugging information
automatically. That script is supposed to be provided by the distribution,
as a drop-in replacement for the example script shipped by upstream. In
Fedora, we ship, or used to ship, one that works, or used to work, on
Fedora. (At least when I was still comaintaining the core KDE packages, we
did.) So it looks like the script is either not getting installed anymore or
does not work anymore. Either way, this is a packaging bug.
The alternative approach of GDB itself fetching the debugging information
(the debuginfod feature) is interesting, but it should not be required for
DrKonqi to work.
> Why can't we disable Dr. Konqi and let abrt handle KDE coredumps so we can
> gauge the true state of KDE apps in Fedora?
Because ABRT files the crash reports only downstream (in Fedora/RH Bugzilla)
where they just rot unprocessed until the Fedora release reaches EOL,
because:
* there is nobody in the KDE SIG who is able to do anything with them. (This
was the case even back when I was directly involved, and the KDE SIG
manpower has been steadily decreasing rather than increasing since then.
Most work is being done by a single, heavily overworked, maintainer.)
* there are just too many ABRT reports for the maintainers to even forward
them upstream manually, and
* the vast majority of ABRT reporters are entirely uncooperative and
completely ignore any and all comments, including but not limited to ones
asking them to upstream the reports themselves.
The only way to get the reports upstream where they have any chance of
actually getting fixed is to default to a crash handler that files them
directly there, and that is KCrash+DrKonqi.
One Fedora release accidentally shipped without DrKonqi on the KDE Spin by
default, and the resulting flood of ABRT reports was absolutely unmanageable
(and was one of the reasons I had to step down from comaintainership, the
e-mail flood was just unmanageable).
> Right now, no one knows how many KDE segfaults exist.
Trust me, you do not want to know. ;-)
Kevin Kofler
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
