On Fri, 2009-10-16 at 12:39 +0200, Jiri Moskovcak wrote:
On 10/16/2009 11:05 AM, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 10:36:04 +0200, Jiri Moskovcak wrote:
>> Or if we don't have debuginfo then we shouldn't even try to get bt?
> I think ABRT should avoid using debuginfo even if it is installed as it may be
> performance-costly for the client machine and the retrace server can take care
> of it better incl. by its use of entries caching across reporting machines.
> But I still miss:
> * Facts why ABRT is still stepping around the use of external retrace server.
1. How would you imagine it to work for ordinary desktop users, should
they install their own private retrace server or send the cores
somewhere? (neither is possible)
It's possible. I think we just do not want to make it mandatory for
As it stands now, abrt is not working well enough yet even in the
one mode we implemented for it, without retrace servers and such.
Jan, we do understand that in some cases people will want to collect
coredumps and perform backtraces on a dedicated servers, and we want
to eventually have this functionality too. We have it in our design
But today we are concentrating at making at least the initial feature
set to work correctly. It's not a good time to work on additional
features, when basic features are half-broken. We do not want
to alienate users by giving them a half-broken tool.
That's why I want to make local backtrace generation to work