On Nov 26, 2010, at 4:01 PM, Ralph Angenendt wrote:
>
> So it is either abrt without reporting, no abrt, or b.c.o running on a
> bugzilla instance, afaics.
>
There are fallacies in reaching the conclusion that
those are the only possible outcomes.
The argument chain that leads to those alternative resolutions
goes something like this:
Q: Are segfault's (tracked by ABRT) bugs?
A: Almost certainly.
Q: And where do bug reports get filed go ... ?
A: In a bugzilla! duh!
which leads to a certain narrow perspective and Q.E.D conclusion:
1) rip ABRT out of CentOS
2) cripple ABRT or gimp it up with "no reporting"
3) set up a b.c.o instance
Bugzilla is almost certainly a reasonable end-point for ABRT
if you have gazillions of paid employees who are
paid (as part of a "service" model) to track
store-bought product defects and paying customer complaints.
But is that the right model for CentOS? Hardly imho ...
The better model is what is being done with kernel.org bugs
(which I claim was studied when ABRT was written. I'm sure
there were other implementations at M$ and with Apple radar blips too).
With kernel.org, bugs are tracked as a software devel process metric, not as
a paid wage slave performance indicator.
SO I suggest that you should look at other alternative end-points
for ABRT automated segfault/bug end-points, and view as a
objective distro "process" metric to prioritize scarce resources, not track,
bug reports. No user id's needed is just one of many benefits.
Unless you really like sipping from a bugzilla fire hose,
with everyone 2nd and 3rd guessing whatever solution you
attempted to solve a reported problem. There are hair shorts and
strait jackets for those who really MUSTHAVE their nagware to
Get Things Done!
JMHO, YMMV, everyone's does, yadda, yadda.
hth
73 de Jeff