Re: ABRT considered painful

[Michael Schwendt <mschwendt gmail com>]

On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 22:04:59 +0100, Kevin wrote:

> > What's wrong with ABRT?
> 
> My main beef with it is that it reports its crashes to the downstream bug 
> tracker when really the right people to fix them are the upstream 
> developers. KCrash/DrKonqi is much better there.

Well, upstream would want detailed backtraces, too.

  $ grep "Debuginfo absent" attachment.cgi\?id\=381101 | wc -l
  188
  $ grep "No symb" attachment.cgi\?id\=381101 | wc -l
  64

Those 188+64 lines are half of the backtrace attachment already
$ cat attachment.cgi\?id\=381101 | wc -l
517

| Debuginfo absent: 0011710bbf8990924b6dd2b256219d5682db6515

Instead of logging 188 missing debuginfo hashes which isn't useful, better
log human-readable package EVRs. That would tell more about what package
versions a reporter used.