On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 09:58:21PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Sun, 2010-01-17 at 15:12 +0100, Christoph Wickert wrote:
I doubt this very much. Many people don't report the bugs when the app
crashes but later, many reports in a row. Most of my reports read I
have no idea what I was
Am Montag, den 18.01.2010, 21:58 -0800 schrieb Adam Williamson:
On Sun, 2010-01-17 at 15:12 +0100, Christoph Wickert wrote:
I doubt this very much. Many people don't report the bugs when the app
crashes but later, many reports in a row. Most of my reports read I
have no idea what I was
On Mon, 2010-01-18 at 09:06 +0100, Jiri Moskovcak wrote:
On 01/17/2010 06:49 PM, Camilo Mesias wrote:
Someone else asked this earlier - but why do users need the debug-info
packages - only the debugger looking at the tracebacks needs this. So
seems installing the debug files on every
On 01/17/2010 07:41 AM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
The request to give the RAM some testing is not impolite.
I absolutely agree---it is usually a simple test that people
can run with minimal guidance, and it can possibly detect problems
that would otherwise be very hard to diagnose (I personally
On 01/18/2010 12:58 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
Tony Nelsontonynel...@georgeanelson.com writes:
On 10-01-17 12:32:17, Mail Lists wrote:
Someone else asked this earlier - but why do users need the
debug-info packages - only the debugger looking at the tracebacks
needs this. So seems installing the
On Sun, 2010-01-17 at 13:02 +, Camilo Mesias wrote:
Having said that the things that can be done with a mere backtrace are
limited. I would almost always need to look at the corefile too, and
would be frustrated if it wasn't available. Perhaps the workflow that
starts with ABRT providing
On Mon, 2010-01-18 at 09:31 +0100, Alexander Larsson wrote:
On Sun, 2010-01-17 at 13:02 +, Camilo Mesias wrote:
Having said that the things that can be done with a mere backtrace
are
limited. I would almost always need to look at the corefile too, and
would be frustrated if it wasn't
On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 09:06:13 +0100, Jiri Moskovcak wrote:
On 01/17/2010 06:49 PM, Camilo Mesias wrote:
This is a good point, the users shouldn't really have to install
debuginfo for a one-off use. It would be better for a central server
or service to have access to all the debuginfo files
On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 09:18:11 +0100, Jiri Moskovcak wrote:
On 01/17/2010 05:57 PM, Christoph Wickert wrote:
5. Instead of hashes the missing debuginfo packages should be
listed with n-v-r, so people can install them manually.
This could be a problem. ABRT determines the required
On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 11:19:29 +0100, Jiri Moskovcak wrote:
On 01/18/2010 11:17 AM, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
Currently ABRT can at least run `rpm -qf MAIN_EXECUTABLE
ALL_GDB_INFO_SHARED_DISPLAYED LIBRARIES FILENAMES' and report these nvrs in
the Bugzilla bugreport before such build-id - nvr
Dne 16.1.2010 22:25, Ola Thoresen napsal(a):
Have a look at this bug for instance:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_activity.cgi?id=531343
It was closed two months ago as WORKSFORME, still ABRT adds more and
more users to the Cc-list.
Obviously something is not working for someone, but ABRT
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 11:11:25AM +0100, Radek Vokal wrote:
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 10:13 AM, Caolán McNamara caol...@redhat.com wrote:
On Sat, 2010-01-16 at 16:01 +0100, Christoph Wickert wrote:
I know that APRT is still very young technology, but after 2 months it's
time for a interim
2010/1/18 Jiri Moskovcak jmosk...@redhat.com:
Plus abrt should run `rpm -V' on any rpm involved in the transaction (=if
user
does not have replaced the binary by some non-rpm make install).
ABRT used to do this (and still can, it's just disabled), but rpm -V uses
prelink to un-prelink the
On 01/18/2010 01:28 PM, Thomas Moschny wrote:
2010/1/18 Jiri Moskovcakjmosk...@redhat.com:
Plus abrt should run `rpm -V' on any rpm involved in the transaction (=if
user
does not have replaced the binary by some non-rpm make install).
ABRT used to do this (and still can, it's just disabled),
On 01/18/2010 02:18 PM, James Antill wrote:
On Mon, 2010-01-18 at 11:19 +0100, Jiri Moskovcak wrote:
Currently ABRT can at least run `rpm -qf MAIN_EXECUTABLE
ALL_GDB_INFO_SHARED_DISPLAYED LIBRARIES FILENAMES' and report these nvrs in
the Bugzilla bugreport before such build-id - nvr server is
On Sun, 2010-01-17 at 15:12 +0100, Christoph Wickert wrote:
I doubt this very much. Many people don't report the bugs when the app
crashes but later, many reports in a row. Most of my reports read I
have no idea what I was doing when foo crashed, even if they
submitted
it straight after the
On Sun, 2010-01-17 at 17:49 +, Camilo Mesias wrote:
Someone else asked this earlier - but why do users need the
debug-info
packages - only the debugger looking at the tracebacks needs this.
So
seems installing the debug files on every desktop/server that has a
problem is much less
On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 12:36:03 +0100, Nicolas wrote:
Le samedi 16 janvier 2010 à 15:09 -0500, Tom Lane a écrit :
Users have to provide information
about what they were doing, copies of input files, etc etc just the
same as in a manually-initiated bug report.
IMHO the big plus of abrt is
Le dimanche 17 janvier 2010 à 12:53 +0100, Michael Schwendt a écrit :
On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 12:36:03 +0100, Nicolas wrote:
Le samedi 16 janvier 2010 à 15:09 -0500, Tom Lane a écrit :
Users have to provide information
about what they were doing, copies of input files, etc etc just
the
On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 12:36:03PM +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
Le samedi 16 janvier 2010 à 15:09 -0500, Tom Lane a écrit :
Users have to provide information
about what they were doing, copies of input files, etc etc just the
same as in a manually-initiated bug report.
IMHO the big
On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 13:09:56 +0100, Nicolas wrote:
A downside is that ABRT is triggered for all sorts of weird
memory/heap
corruption that isn't reproducible. Stability problems with RAM chips
are widespread.
A bugzilla stock response that points at memtester and memtest86+
will
Can we draw any parallels from work in the commercial world? (I was
going to use the word 'professional' but don't want to disparage open
source work... it's just a different ecosystem)
So at work we have to produce a software product.
We test the product to the best of our ability / to test
Am Sonntag, den 17.01.2010, 12:36 +0100 schrieb Nicolas Mailhot:
IMHO the big plus of abrt is it triggers even when the user is not
giving his full attention to the app and not checking what it does
exactly when it crashes (typical example is multitasking and doing stuff
in 3-4 apps when one
On 01/16/2010 04:01 PM, Christoph Wickert wrote:
I know that APRT is still very young technology, but after 2 months it's
time for a interim conclusion. For me the conclusions are:
Pro:
* abrt is a help for developers: I received one positive feedback
from a developer: The
Camilo Mesias cam...@mesias.co.uk writes:
What if every component had a placeholder bug for undiagnosed ABRT
info. Keeping all of them together would help to gauge which are
significant and which are one-in-a-million cosmic rays flipping RAM
bits etc.
Well, it's supposed to do that already I
Am Sonntag, den 17.01.2010, 15:53 +0100 schrieb Jiri Moskovcak:
On 01/16/2010 04:01 PM, Christoph Wickert wrote:
I know that APRT is still very young technology, but after 2 months it's
time for a interim conclusion. For me the conclusions are:
Pro:
* abrt is a help for
On 01/17/2010 11:57 AM, Christoph Wickert wrote:
Am Sonntag, den 17.01.2010, 15:53 +0100 schrieb Jiri Moskovcak:
On 01/16/2010 04:01 PM, Christoph Wickert wrote:
I'm open to any ideas how to improve this.
Someone else asked this earlier - but why do users need the debug-info
packages -
On 10-01-17 12:32:17, Mail Lists wrote:
On 01/17/2010 11:57 AM, Christoph Wickert wrote:
Am Sonntag, den 17.01.2010, 15:53 +0100 schrieb Jiri Moskovcak:
On 01/16/2010 04:01 PM, Christoph Wickert wrote:
I'm open to any ideas how to improve this.
Someone else asked this earlier -
On 01/17/2010 01:20 PM, Tony Nelson wrote:
Apparently Linux has no mini-dump facility, so the upload of the whole
core dump file would be onerous as well.
I'd still bet a core file is smaller than the 60 - 100 debug packages
(per crashing app) I need before I can send a trace back.
--
cores typically compress fantastically well, too.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Tony Nelson tonynel...@georgeanelson.com writes:
On 10-01-17 12:32:17, Mail Lists wrote:
Someone else asked this earlier - but why do users need the
debug-info packages - only the debugger looking at the tracebacks
needs this. So seems installing the debug files on every desktop/
server that
I know that APRT is still very young technology, but after 2 months it's
time for a interim conclusion. For me the conclusions are:
Pro:
* abrt is a help for developers: I received one positive feedback
from a developer: The backtrace looks interesting but cannot
be fixed
Am Samstag, den 16.01.2010, 16:01 +0100 schrieb Christoph Wickert:
I know that APRT is still very young technology, but after 2 months it's
time for a interim conclusion. For me the conclusions are:
Pro:
* abrt is a help for developers: I received one positive feedback
from
Have a look at this bug for instance:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_activity.cgi?id=531343
It was closed two months ago as WORKSFORME, still ABRT adds more and
more users to the Cc-list.
Obviously something is not working for someone, but ABRT seems to ignore
the fact that the bug is closed
Am Samstag, den 16.01.2010, 22:25 +0100 schrieb Ola Thoresen:
Have a look at this bug for instance:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_activity.cgi?id=531343
It was closed two months ago as WORKSFORME, still ABRT adds more and
more users to the Cc-list.
Obviously something is not working
35 matches
Mail list logo
