On Fri, 2010-01-22 at 22:43 -0500, Mail Llists wrote:
> On 01/22/2010 09:50 PM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> holes in their visibility as to what made YOUR instance crap out.
> >
> > Apart from the coredump, logs and my description of what happened, there
> > is absolutely nothing that I can send
On Fri, 2010-01-22 at 22:43 -0500, Mail Llists wrote:
> This already came up a while back - the concern as I recall was
> coredumps may contain private data - the traceback you can read and
> check .. the coredump you cant (easily).
The 95% answer to that is that you don't send a coredump of your
On 01/22/2010 09:50 PM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
holes in their visibility as to what made YOUR instance crap out.
>
> Apart from the coredump, logs and my description of what happened, there
> is absolutely nothing that I can send them that they can't in principle
> get for themselves.
>
> po
On Fri, 2010-01-22 at 16:24 -0800, Rick Stevens wrote:
> > Given that abrt is designed to make bug-reporting easier for the
> average
> > user, I suspect a lot of b/w is being consumed by these downloads
> that
> > would not otherwise be the case. Would it not be an idea to rethink
> how
> > this i
On 01/22/2010 12:25 PM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> I'm just filing my 3rd or 4th abrt report in as many days (for different
> apps), and every time the tool downloads a whole bunch of debuginfo
> packages so it can resolve symbols in coredumps. This makes perfect
> sense, except that the people w
I'm just filing my 3rd or 4th abrt report in as many days (for different
apps), and every time the tool downloads a whole bunch of debuginfo
packages so it can resolve symbols in coredumps. This makes perfect
sense, except that the people who will eventually look at the bug report
have just as much
