Hi, I wonder why gnome-abrt is not part of the default installation in Fedora 26 Workstation composes. Is it intentional or just a mistake? If intentional, what is the reason? I find ABRT crash report stats pretty useful.
Jiri
On 03/27/2017 08:15 AM, Jiri Eischmann wrote:
Hi, I wonder why gnome-abrt is not part of the default installation in Fedora 26 Workstation composes. Is it intentional or just a mistake? If intentional, what is the reason? I find ABRT crash report stats pretty useful.
Does that mean it's not available in the installer either? Because the Alpha release criterion state: "The installer must be able to report failures to Bugzilla, with appropriate information included."
Stephen Gallagher píše v Po 27. 03. 2017 v 08:24 -0400:
On 03/27/2017 08:15 AM, Jiri Eischmann wrote:
Hi, I wonder why gnome-abrt is not part of the default installation in Fedora 26 Workstation composes. Is it intentional or just a mistake? If intentional, what is the reason? I find ABRT crash report stats pretty useful.
Does that mean it's not available in the installer either? Because the Alpha release criterion state: "The installer must be able to report failures to Bugzilla, with appropriate information included."
abrt itself is preinstalled and abrtd seems to be running. What is missing is the gnome-abrt which gives you UI for viewing the crashes and reporting them in BZ. So crashes are probably collected and automatically reported if permitted, but the user is not notified about them and there is no easy way to report them in BZ. Not sure about Anaconda. If they implement their own UI that interacts with ABRT, then users can probably report crashes there, otherwise it's the same situation.
Jiri
On Mon, 2017-03-27 at 14:40 +0200, Jiri Eischmann wrote:
abrt itself is preinstalled and abrtd seems to be running. What is missing is the gnome-abrt which gives you UI for viewing the crashes and reporting them in BZ. So crashes are probably collected and automatically reported if permitted, but the user is not notified about them and there is no easy way to report them in BZ.
This is not intentional. The workstation-product group in comps includes the abrt-desktop package, and that requires gnome-abrt. So it should definitely be included. Further investigation is required to see what's going wrong here.
Michael
On Mon, 2017-03-27 at 08:17 -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
On Mon, 2017-03-27 at 14:40 +0200, Jiri Eischmann wrote:
abrt itself is preinstalled and abrtd seems to be running. What is missing is the gnome-abrt which gives you UI for viewing the crashes and reporting them in BZ. So crashes are probably collected and automatically reported if permitted, but the user is not notified about them and there is no easy way to report them in BZ.
This is not intentional. The workstation-product group in comps includes the abrt-desktop package, and that requires gnome-abrt. So it should definitely be included. Further investigation is required to see what's going wrong here.
Haven't looked fully into this yet, but the anaconda packaging log for the Alpha RC4 Workstation live image compose:
https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/5428/18645428/anaconda-packag...
shows abrt-desktop initially being selected for install, but not actually being installed. That suggests there was some kind of dependency issue and dnf just left it out of the transaction instead of complaining / aborting / whatever (I'm not sure if this is new or old behaviour).
Poking around in a mock chroot reveals:
<mock-chroot> sh-4.4# dnf install abrt-desktop Last metadata expiration check: 0:00:00 ago on Tue Mar 28 21:19:32 2017 PDT. Error: package abrt-desktop-2.10.0-4.fc26.x86_64 requires abrt-plugin-bodhi, but none of the providers can be installed - conflicting requests - nothing provides libhawkey.so.2()(64bit) needed by abrt-plugin-bodhi-2.10.0-4.fc26.x86_64 (try to add '--allowerasing' to command line to replace conflicting packages) <mock-chroot> sh-4.4#
So...that's probably the problem. Unfortunately, this has just missed the boat for the RC6 compose. It looks like abrt-2.10.1-1.fc26 fixes this, it's currently in updates-testing. I'll file an FE in case we wind up doing *another* Alpha compose.
On Tue, 2017-03-28 at 21:24 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Mon, 2017-03-27 at 08:17 -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
On Mon, 2017-03-27 at 14:40 +0200, Jiri Eischmann wrote:
abrt itself is preinstalled and abrtd seems to be running. What is missing is the gnome-abrt which gives you UI for viewing the crashes and reporting them in BZ. So crashes are probably collected and automatically reported if permitted, but the user is not notified about them and there is no easy way to report them in BZ.
This is not intentional. The workstation-product group in comps includes the abrt-desktop package, and that requires gnome-abrt. So it should definitely be included. Further investigation is required to see what's going wrong here.
Haven't looked fully into this yet, but the anaconda packaging log for the Alpha RC4 Workstation live image compose:
https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/5428/18645428/anaconda-packag...
shows abrt-desktop initially being selected for install, but not actually being installed. That suggests there was some kind of dependency issue and dnf just left it out of the transaction instead of complaining / aborting / whatever (I'm not sure if this is new or old behaviour).
Poking around on this, some background in:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1292892
After that bug, I think dnf was made to error out if a *mandatory* package from a selected group cannot be installed, but not if a *default* package from a selected group cannot be installed.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1427365
A similar case I came across recently (outside of anaconda).
I *think* comps entries with no explicit 'type' default to being treated as 'default', not 'mandatory', and dnf is considering it to be OK if a 'default' group package cannot be installed. After looking at the references, I'm pretty sure this is not how yum behaved. I don't know offhand why this behaviour was changed in dnf.
On Tue, 2017-03-28 at 21:24 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
I'll file an FE in case we wind up doing *another* Alpha compose.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1436941
On Tue, 2017-03-28 at 21:30 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
I *think* comps entries with no explicit 'type' default to being treated as 'default', not 'mandatory', and dnf is considering it to be OK if a 'default' group package cannot be installed. After looking at the references, I'm pretty sure this is not how yum behaved. I don't know offhand why this behaviour was changed in dnf.
Then we'll need to add type="mandatory" to absolutely everything, because we always want compose to fail if a package is missing.
Michael
desktop@lists.stg.fedoraproject.org
-
Adam Williamson -
Jiri Eischmann -
Michael Catanzaro -
Stephen Gallagher