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
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
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 e
On Mon, 2010-01-18 at 11:17 +0100, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
> 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 t
Dne 19.1.2010 23:06, Adam Williamson napsal(a):
> need more unstable apps!
I can easily prepare some nuke bombs ;)
--
Nikola
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 10:06 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-01-19 at 11:44 +0100, Jiri Moskovcak wrote:
>
> > > Package updates to ABRT
> > > should receive a lot of testing in order to avoid rushed "stable"
> > releases
> > > that result in less useful bz tickets.
> >
> > I agree, we
On Tue, 2010-01-19 at 11:44 +0100, Jiri Moskovcak wrote:
> > Package updates to ABRT
> > should receive a lot of testing in order to avoid rushed "stable"
> releases
> > that result in less useful bz tickets.
>
> I agree, we (ABRT team) do a lot of testing before new release, but of
>
> course c
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 ha
On 01/19/2010 11:27 AM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 21:49:05 -0800, Adam wrote:
On Sat, 2010-01-16 at 16:01 +0100, Christoph Wickert wrote:
* abrt is frustrating for users: Today I received my first "No
need for a reply...I will stop submitting tickets."
Can s
On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 21:49:05 -0800, Adam wrote:
> On Sat, 2010-01-16 at 16:01 +0100, Christoph Wickert wrote:
>
> > * abrt is frustrating for users: Today I received my first "No
> > need for a reply...I will stop submitting tickets."
> >
> > Can somebody confirm my observations?
>
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 mu
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 afte
On Sat, 2010-01-16 at 16:01 +0100, Christoph Wickert wrote:
> Con:
>
> * Unfortunately 3 out of ~ 40 reports is not a good percentage.
Approximately the same as manual reports, in my experience.
> * As already pointed out by Michael Schwendt some time ago,
> there
> were som
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 02:45:33PM +0100, Jiri Moskovcak wrote:
> 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
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 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 deployed.
This should use the yum
2010/1/18 Jiri Moskovcak :
> On 01/18/2010 01:28 PM, Thomas Moschny wrote:
>> 2010/1/18 Jiri Moskovcak:
>>> ABRT used to do this (and still can, it's just disabled), but rpm -V uses
>>> prelink to un-prelink the binaries to check the MD5 sum and security guys
>>> don't like it.
>>
>> Can you explai
On 01/18/2010 01:28 PM, Thomas Moschny wrote:
2010/1/18 Jiri Moskovcak:
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
pr
2010/1/18 Jiri Moskovcak :
>> 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 binaries to
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 11:11:25AM +0100, Radek Vokal wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 10:13 AM, Caolán McNamara 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 conclusion.
On 01/18/2010 11:38 AM, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
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
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,
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 ->
On 01/18/2010 11:17 AM, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
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 co
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 re
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 10:13 AM, Caolán McNamara 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 conclusion. For me the conclusions are:
>
> Abrt's getting a bit of a knocking in
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 f
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 conclusion. For me the conclusions are:
Abrt's getting a bit of a knocking in this thread, but I'm fairly happy
with it myself, it's doing its
On 01/18/2010 09:34 AM, Alexander Larsson wrote:
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 coref
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 i
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 providi
On 01/17/2010 05:57 PM, 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 know that APRT is still very young technology, but after 2 months it's
time for a interim conclusion. For me the conclusions are:
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 desktop/server that has a
problem is much less efficient than just
On 01/18/2010 12:58 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
Tony Nelson 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/
se
Tony Nelson 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 has a problem is mu
cores typically compress fantastically well, too.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
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.
--
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 th
> 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 efficient than just on the dev computer who needs
> the info
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
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
Camilo Mesias 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 think: if you ge
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 backt
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 o
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 plans
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 "memtes
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 th
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 jus
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
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 it triggers even when the user is not
giving his full a
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 wo
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
On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 15:09:46 -0500, Tom wrote:
> Note: I haven't seen the submitter's end of ABRT yet, just the bug
> reports. Maybe it does ask for more info ...
Sort of. The final dialogue contains two text edit areas below the
summary of what will be sent:
http://mschwendt.fedorapeople.org/
Christoph Wickert writes:
> I know that APRT is still very young technology, but after 2 months it's
> time for a interim conclusion [ to wit, it sucks ]
Yes. The primary problem I'm seeing is that even when it gives you a
useful backtrace, the bug report consists *only* of the backtrace, which
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
>
55 matches
Mail list logo
