Hi,
On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 12:22:51PM +0300, Elad Alfassa wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 11:59 AM, Jiri Eischmann <eischmann@redhat.com>
> wrote:
> > ad 1) I think ABRT offers two ways to create backtraces etc. Either onSo maybe these users might prefer not to use abrt? There are also users
> > their server or on your machine. AFAIK ABRT started preferring the
> > former option because users don't have to install all the debug tools to
> > report a problem, but if their server is overloaded it may take ages to
> > create a bug report.
> >
>
> Some users have extremely slow upload speeds, so uploading a 100MB core
> dump takes ages.
> Downloading the debuginfo is also a problem for people with slow download
> speed.
with very high upload/download speeds, for whom neither is a problem...
>Yeah, why not. Because it is already hard to get an idea about the
> Fedora executables and shared objects are compiled with a minimized form of
> debuginfo. It allows creating a simple backtrace even when you don't have
> the huge -debuginfo packages installed, when the only downside for this
> case is that you'll not have source line names, only symbol names and the
> name of the shared object they came from.
>
> I think that if we want to improve ABRT's UX, we need to get rid of the
> retrace server AND the debuginfo downloading, an generate the backtrace for
> the bugreport without these.
reason for the crash from the backtrace, let's make it even harder!
</sarcasm>
Frankly, rather than that, it would be much better to disable abrt bug
reporting completely.
No, it is not. From packager's POV it is worse than nothing, as it
> The backtrace will take less than a minute to generate (in most cases) and
> is better than nothing.
forces me to spend time on the bug, even though the expectation of
successuful identification of the problem is practically zero.