On 05/15/2015 03:35 PM, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
On Fri, 2015-05-15 at 08:47 -0400, Bastien Nocera wrote:
As far as GNOME is concerned, the ABRT setting is deprecated.
Well it's obviously unacceptable to have two different settings for the same thing, one of which supercedes the other.
Tangentially related: to be blunt, I have no confidence that the ABRT developers can get the GUI into shape in any reasonable timespan (next 2-3 years) and I'd prefer for us to not ship the GUI at all.
Sure. It's rocket science to make a GUI according to Gnome HIG, cause it shouldn't have any buttons or features. 2-3 years? I can and I will write an Qt app for ABRT in 2-3 days when our DBus API stabilizes.
I'm wondering what according to you is "in shape" as in my experience most Gnome apps went downhill in terms of usability, features and overall look.
Automatic reporting to the retrace server should suffice for us.
Retrace server is something different and there's no reporting to retrace server - retrace server (surprise) does retracing of core dumps to generate micro reports sent to faf.
https://abrt.readthedocs.org/en/latest/howitworks.html
Even that comes at tremendous cost: out-of-the-box coredumpctl. coredumpctl is an amazing feature for developers (and why I do not use ABRT) and it's a shame that ABRT disables it.
If you ever talked to ABRT developers about these sort of things you would know that there's integration ongoing to use tooling that systemd provides (both coredump hook & journald) so it would be possible to use coredumpctl and abrt alongside.
By tremendous cost you mean you can't use fancy coredumpctl gdb command but with little effort you can write a simple wrapper around abrt-cli that does the very same thing. I agree abrt-cli is not the most usable or intuitive tool but I haven't seen an RFE from you about its missing features. So why you are bashing our project instead of trying to be constructive?