On 05/09/12 08:23, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
On Tue, 08 May 2012 15:03:28 +0200, Alexander Larsson wrote:
> Take this post for instance:
On Tue, 08 May 2012 15:10:28 +0200, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
> Wrong. From /me you don't get abrt reports at all, because abrt simply
> is a pain with a slow internet link due to the tons of data it wants
> transmit. Also it doesn't say what it is going to do (download ?? MB
> debuginfo / upload ?? MB core). And there is no progress bar. Ok,
> might have changed meanwhile, its a while back I tried last.
Great, these were the first useful posts in this thread.
Therefore IIUC the problem is ABRT is not good enough.
There is room for improvements indeed. It is one but not the only problem.
Because ABRT has not yet met its expectations we should provide at
least this temporary solution before ABRT gets fixed.
No. There will always be cases where the current abrt model fails:
Local trace generation requires downloading lots of debuginfo. Might
not work / work badly because:
(1) you are offline.
(2) your internet link is slow.
(3) you are on 3G and don't want to pay the volume.
(4) you don't have the disk space to store debuginfo.
Server-based trace generation requires uploading a potentially large
core file (which probably can be reduced using mozilla-like minidumps).
Bandwidth requirements aside there are still issues with that:
(1) works only when online.
(2) you might not want upload to the fedora server for privacy
or company policy reasons.
(3) private / company-wide retrace server needs extra effort (both
hardware and work time), you can't count on it being available.
 I expect abrt support minidebuginfo traces too once the feature