On Sat, 30 May 2020 07:33:04 -0500, Roger Heflin wrote:
My background is I have been used Fedora since Core 1, and prior to
that started with Redhat 5/6/7/8/9 and managed (or was technical lead
for a team) with >1000 installed running combinations of RHEL, Centos,
non-enterprise Redhat/Fedora, and/or SLES since around 1998, in
addition to running a few home systems.
So, that confirms my assumption. For reasons not known yet you ignore why
non-commercial Linux distributions exist and how they try to appeal to a
potential target audience. That is really odd, because you have been a
distribution user already when Red Hat Linux was not a community project
yet and only offered unsatisfying experiments like Red Hat Contrib before
the creation of the independent fedora.us project.
The distribution also remove a signification number of rpms so only
cares about supporting maybe 1/2 or less (and that is for the rpms in
the fedora repos).
??? Where do your numbers come from? Even old Red Hat Linux doubled its
number of source (!) packages from 4.x to 8.0. And the size of the package
collection (in terms of source rpms) has grown a lot to something like
factor 30-50 with/without taking into account 3rd party repositories.
A lot of single reporter bugs are often something specific odd the
person is doing wrong, and it takes a lot of time to work through the
reports to figure out which are which.
Which is not the point.
The point is that submitted bug reports (particularly those that have been
commented on by the bug reporter instead of only dumping data into
bugzilla via ABRT) ought not end up in nirvana. And if somebody decides
that it's a corner-case issue with nobody to look into it due to
insufficient manpower, the automated response could offer some guidance
for the bug reporter.
I don't believe abrtd collects kernel panic by default, and
kernel
dumps also aren't configured by default.
Have you never noticed the "[abrt]" prefix in the bug summaries?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/buglist.cgi?component=kernel&product=Fedora