On Mon, 2011-06-27 at 14:17 +0200, Jiri Moskovcak wrote:
On 06/27/2011 01:19 PM, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-06-27 at 13:11 +0200, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
>> On Mon, 2011-06-27 at 11:05 +0200, Nikola Pajkovsky wrote:
>>> This code belongs to abrt.git.
>> Why do you think so?
> I would like to expand a bit.
> Having cli functions split into two binaries in two different packages
> makes it a bit harder to work with it, both for developers
> (two different source directories) and for users (they need
> to remember which operation they can do with which tool
> - report-cli or abrt-cli).
> This split has to have some advantages which outweigh this.
> What are they? Off-hand, I don't see any.
Just from the top of my head:
- abrt-cli needs to know about /var/spool/abrt which is "internal" abrt
knowledge and any part of libreport should know about it
(I assume you mean "should not know about it").
report-cli currently uses /var/spool/abrt as a default for -D DIR.
If you feel that having it is "incorrect", then I have a few ideas
how to make it "more correct":
This default can be (1) removed, or better, (2) made configurable at
build time, say, configure --with-default-dump-dir=DIR.
For Fedora, we'll build it with --with-default-dump-dir=/var/spool/abrt.
Whoever else wants to build it, they can use anything they want,
or omit it and have no default.
How does this look to you?