[CentOS] abrt relevance?

[Johnny Hughes]

On 07/20/2014 02:34 PM, Eric Smith wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 1:20 PM, Johnny Hughes <johnny at centos.org> wrote:
>> On 07/20/2014 02:11 PM, Ted Miller wrote:
>>> I am trying to understand the relevance of the abrt program.  It pops up
>>> automatically when somethings acts up, but I can't submit anything to RH,
>>> because I haven't paid their fees.  It is a very bad user experience to go
>>> through the whole process of describing what led up to the problem and get
>>> to the end of the process and be rejected with an un-fixable error message
>>> (because I didn't buy RHEL support).  It seems to me that either:
>>>
>>> 1. It should be modified so that it points to somewhere that I can file a
>>> report (such a place probably doesn't exist).
>>>
>>> or
>>>
>>> 2. It not automatically activated (because it is irrelevant to most users).
>>>
>>> or
>>>
>>> 3. It should be modified so that it creates a file for submission.
>>>
>>> Anybody have any reason to have it act the way it does on C6.5?
>>>
>>> Ted Miller
>>> Elkhart, IN
>>>
>>> P.S. It would be nice if anyone has a hint about why KDE desktop keeps
>>> giving me "Process /usr/bin/plasma-desktop was killed by signal 11
>>> (SIGSEGV) errors.  My desktop (but not the windows on it) goes black.
>>> Usually it comes back in 2-4 seconds, but sometimes it disappears and stays
>>> gone.  Then I can switch windows with Alt+Tab, but can't open any new ones,
>>> and the only way to log out is Ctl+Alt+Backspace.
>> The goal of CentOS is to:
>>
>> "As such, CentOS Linux aims to be functionally compatible with RHEL. We
>> mainly change packages to remove upstream vendor branding and artwork."
>>
>> So, abrt has been modified to remove branding and artwork ... we would
>> like to make it more relevant and functional.  This is one of the
>> packages where we would certainly like the ability to provide something
>> better than we do .. patches from the community are welcomed/encouraged
>> to make it better.
> If I'm not mistaken, doesn't CentOS remove the facilities for using
> the Red Hat Network, e.g., through yum?  If so, removing abrt or not
> having it attempt to use Red Hat's abrt server end would be entirely
> consistent with that, even though it goes beyond "removing branding
> and artwork".

Yep, we will do it.  Again, patches welcome.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20140720/d5a5a608/attachment.sig>