On 12/13/2010 01:14 PM, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
On Thursday, December 09, 2010 06:24:15 pm Jiri Moskovcak wrote:
On 12/09/2010 06:11 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Thu, 2010-12-09 at 17:36 +0100, Jiri Moskovcak wrote:
so, can we call the RFE: attach backtrace even when dupe is found ?
or,
On 12/13/2010 02:17 PM, Jiri Moskovcak wrote:
On 12/13/2010 01:14 PM, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
On Thursday, December 09, 2010 06:24:15 pm Jiri Moskovcak wrote:
On 12/09/2010 06:11 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Thu, 2010-12-09 at 17:36 +0100, Jiri Moskovcak wrote:
so, can we call the RFE: attach
Dave Jones wrote:
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, but there's a pretty big
difference between completely ignoring automatically filed bugs
(regardless of where they're filed), and automatically filing those bugs
upstream.
Of course. But that's why I'm advocating doing the
Jiri Moskovcak wrote:
This is not a first time when in see this idea and was already answered
- we're the distro and we're responsible for the packages, filling all
bugs to the upstream will make more harm then good - e.g. crash caused
by our patch or by some library which has different
On 12/13/2010 05:43 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Jiri Moskovcak wrote:
This is not a first time when in see this idea and was already answered
- we're the distro and we're responsible for the packages, filling all
bugs to the upstream will make more harm then good - e.g. crash caused
by our patch
On 12/12/2010 06:10 AM, Dave Jones wrote:
On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 02:11:27AM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Dave Jones wrote:
On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 12:45:10PM +0100, Jiri Moskovcak wrote:
The problem here is that some maintainers doesn't want ABRT
reports at
On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 12:46:04AM +0100, Jiri Moskovcak wrote:
Apropos of nothing: kerneloops reporting seems to have been broken ever
since
we switched from using the kerneloops client to abrt, but that's another
story..
- I reported quite a few oops using abrt (even found
On 12/11/2010 02:55 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
drago01 wrote:
Well ABRT should stop filing bugs in bugzilla, it does not scale PERIOD.
IMHO it should file bugs in the upstream bug tracker (even if that tracker
is not Bugzilla, so it'd have to learn as many different bug tracker APIs as
On 12/11/2010 02:05 AM, Dave Jones wrote:
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 10:51:39AM +0100, Jiri Moskovcak wrote:
The problem is entirely cosmetic. No data is harmed, the program exits
after that, it's just a child thread and the main process don't
communicate the exit quite right.
On 12/11/2010 06:45 AM, Jiri Moskovcak wrote:
If ABRT can tell that the backtrace is same as something previously
reported then there is no big harm, as it would only add the reporter to
CC and won't be generating much noise..
The problem here is that some maintainers doesn't want ABRT
On 12/11/2010 03:55 PM, Genes MailLists wrote:
On 12/11/2010 06:45 AM, Jiri Moskovcak wrote:
If ABRT can tell that the backtrace is same as something previously
reported then there is no big harm, as it would only add the reporter to
CC and won't be generating much noise..
The problem here
On 12/11/2010 02:15 PM, Jiri Moskovcak wrote:
will/not operate.
ABRT already has a blacklist configurable in it's config file, but it's
controlled by ABRT maintainers... the problem or the request here is to
have a directory like /etc/abrt.d/ where other maintainers can drop a
config
On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 12:45:10PM +0100, Jiri Moskovcak wrote:
The problem here is that some maintainers doesn't want ABRT reports at
all even those not yet reported...
It's arguable that such people are 'maintainers' at all if this is the case.
I find it quite sad that we have packagers
Dave Jones wrote:
On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 12:45:10PM +0100, Jiri Moskovcak wrote:
The problem here is that some maintainers doesn't want ABRT reports at
all even those not yet reported...
It's arguable that such people are 'maintainers' at all if this is the
case. I find it quite
On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 02:11:27AM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Dave Jones wrote:
On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 12:45:10PM +0100, Jiri Moskovcak wrote:
The problem here is that some maintainers doesn't want ABRT reports at
all even those not yet reported...
It's arguable that
On 12/09/2010 08:57 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Thu, 2010-12-09 at 14:53 -0500, Przemek Klosowski wrote:
On 12/09/2010 12:05 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Thu, 2010-12-09 at 12:08 +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
On 12/09/2010 09:59 AM, Jiri Moskovcak wrote:
Just a wild idea - ABRT
On 12/09/2010 08:57 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Thu, 09 Dec 2010 14:53:20 -0500
Przemek Klosowskiprzemek.klosow...@nist.gov wrote:
On 12/09/2010 12:05 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Thu, 2010-12-09 at 12:08 +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
On 12/09/2010 09:59 AM, Jiri Moskovcak wrote:
Just
Hi,
On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 7:57 PM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
if it just invisibly doesn't run, I'd try it again, but if I'm running
it from the console and it spits out a clear fatal error and crashes,
yeah, I'm not going to run it again. That'd be pointless.
I would hope
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 10:51:39AM +0100, Jiri Moskovcak wrote:
The problem is entirely cosmetic. No data is harmed, the program exits
after that, it's just a child thread and the main process don't
communicate the exit quite right. So, pretty much everyone who uses
calibre sees
drago01 wrote:
Well ABRT should stop filing bugs in bugzilla, it does not scale PERIOD.
IMHO it should file bugs in the upstream bug tracker (even if that tracker
is not Bugzilla, so it'd have to learn as many different bug tracker APIs as
possible).
Gnash upstream actually MIGHT be able to
18:53:17 ajax i've heard a modest amount of complaints that abrt is doing
more harm than good
18:53:53 ajax along multiple axes, but in particular it's simply too much
data for apps like firefox and evo for maintainers to respond to
18:54:22 ajax i don't have any particular suggestions for
On 12/09/2010 10:55 AM, Jiri Moskovcak wrote:
On 12/09/2010 10:38 AM, Tomas Mraz wrote:
18:53:17ajax i've heard a modest amount of complaints that abrt is
doing more harm than good
18:53:53ajax along multiple axes, but in particular it's simply too
much data for apps like firefox and
On 12/09/2010 09:59 AM, Jiri Moskovcak wrote:
Just a wild idea - ABRT detects the dupes even locally so we can make
ABRT to allow reporting the bug to bz only if it happened more then once
(or some other threshold):)
Dont we loose hard to catch odd ball bugs if that's implemented?
JBG
--
On 12/09/2010 01:08 PM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
On 12/09/2010 09:59 AM, Jiri Moskovcak wrote:
Just a wild idea - ABRT detects the dupes even locally so we can make
ABRT to allow reporting the bug to bz only if it happened more then once
(or some other threshold):)
Dont we loose hard to
On 12/09/2010 01:27 PM, Jiri Moskovcak wrote:
On 12/09/2010 01:08 PM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
On 12/09/2010 09:59 AM, Jiri Moskovcak wrote:
Just a wild idea - ABRT detects the dupes even locally so we can make
ABRT to allow reporting the bug to bz only if it happened more then once
(or
On 12/09/2010 02:04 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 12/09/2010 01:27 PM, Jiri Moskovcak wrote:
On 12/09/2010 01:08 PM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
On 12/09/2010 09:59 AM, Jiri Moskovcak wrote:
Just a wild idea - ABRT detects the dupes even locally so we can make
ABRT to allow reporting the bug
On 12/09/2010 02:59 PM, Jiri Moskovcak wrote:
On 12/09/2010 02:04 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 12/09/2010 01:27 PM, Jiri Moskovcak wrote:
On 12/09/2010 01:08 PM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
On 12/09/2010 09:59 AM, Jiri Moskovcak wrote:
Just a wild idea - ABRT detects the dupes even locally
On 12/09/2010 08:59 AM, Jiri Moskovcak wrote:
snip
- debuginfo-install is just a fallback if ABRT fails to retrieve the
debuginfo itself (and ABRT doesn't need the root privs, as is *does not*
install the packages, it just unpacks them)
snip
Jirka
Currently, abrt says the debuginfo packages
On 12/09/2010 03:52 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 12/09/2010 02:59 PM, Jiri Moskovcak wrote:
On 12/09/2010 02:04 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 12/09/2010 01:27 PM, Jiri Moskovcak wrote:
On 12/09/2010 01:08 PM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
On 12/09/2010 09:59 AM, Jiri Moskovcak wrote:
Just a
Le Jeu 9 décembre 2010 15:52, Ralf Corsepius a écrit :
It has never done so for me (on fedora 13 + fedora 14). ABRT always
instructs me to run debuginfo-install, which will fail for obvious
reasons in a normal user environment and thus requires me to become root
(On real ordinary user
On 12/09/2010 05:31 PM, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
Le Jeu 9 décembre 2010 15:52, Ralf Corsepius a écrit :
It has never done so for me (on fedora 13 + fedora 14). ABRT always
instructs me to run debuginfo-install, which will fail for obvious
reasons in a normal user environment and thus requires
* Jiri Moskovcak [09/12/2010 17:42] :
so, can we call the RFE: attach backtrace even when dupe is found ?
- Always attach backtrace
- Do not do so in Bugzilla
Emmanuel
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On Thu, 2010-12-09 at 12:08 +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
On 12/09/2010 09:59 AM, Jiri Moskovcak wrote:
Just a wild idea - ABRT detects the dupes even locally so we can make
ABRT to allow reporting the bug to bz only if it happened more then once
(or some other threshold):)
Dont we
On Thu, 2010-12-09 at 17:36 +0100, Jiri Moskovcak wrote:
so, can we call the RFE: attach backtrace even when dupe is found ?
or, cooler, 'attach backtrace even when dupe is found *if current
backtrace is better than any already attached to the bug*'.
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community
On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 10:38 AM, Tomas Mraz tm...@redhat.com wrote:
18:53:17 ajax i've heard a modest amount of complaints that abrt is doing
more harm than good
18:53:53 ajax along multiple axes, but in particular it's simply too much
data for apps like firefox and evo for maintainers to
On 12/09/2010 06:11 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Thu, 2010-12-09 at 17:36 +0100, Jiri Moskovcak wrote:
so, can we call the RFE: attach backtrace even when dupe is found ?
or, cooler, 'attach backtrace even when dupe is found *if current
backtrace is better than any already attached to the
On Thu, 2010-12-09 at 18:24 +0100, Jiri Moskovcak wrote:
On 12/09/2010 06:11 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Thu, 2010-12-09 at 17:36 +0100, Jiri Moskovcak wrote:
so, can we call the RFE: attach backtrace even when dupe is found ?
or, cooler, 'attach backtrace even when dupe is found *if
On 12/09/2010 12:05 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Thu, 2010-12-09 at 12:08 +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
On 12/09/2010 09:59 AM, Jiri Moskovcak wrote:
Just a wild idea - ABRT detects the dupes even locally so we can make
ABRT to allow reporting the bug to bz only if it happened more then
38 matches
Mail list logo
