On 12/09/2010 08:57 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > On Thu, 09 Dec 2010 14:53:20 -0500 > Przemek Klosowski<przemek.klosow...@nist.gov> wrote: > >> On 12/09/2010 12:05 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: >>> On Thu, 2010-12-09 at 12:08 +0000, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote: >>>> On 12/09/2010 09:59 AM, Jiri Moskovcak wrote: >>>>> Just a wild idea - ABRT detects the dupes even locally so we can >>>>> make ABRT to allow reporting the bug to bz only if it happened >>>>> more then once (or some other threshold):) >>>> >>>> Dont we loose hard to catch odd ball bugs if that's implemented? >>> >>> and bugs where an app just very obviously crashes on start. I know >>> *I* wouldn't try it again in that case. What would be the point? >>> I'd know it was going to crash. >> >> Well, I would definitely run it again after saying "WTH, did it >> really just crash on startup?" :) > > I have the opposite problem with calibre. ;) > > it crashes every time on quit. ;) > > The problem is entirely cosmetic. No data is harmed, the program exits > after that, it's just a child thread and the main process don't > communicate the exit quite right. So, pretty much everyone who uses > calibre sees this. > > I haven't been able to fix it (any help welcome), so in this case I > might want to disable abrt reports for now until it's fixed, but enable > them again once it is. If there was some easy way for me to do this > without requiring a new abrt package be pushed out that would be > great. ;) >
added as: "provide a way for maintainers to blacklist their packages without changes into abrt package" https://fedorahosted.org/abrt/wiki/Wishlist > kevin > -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
