Re: ABRT in the comps group 'standard'
On 6.12.2013 10:56, Jakub Filak wrote: I'd like to add abrt-cli package to the comps group 'standard'. Regarding the discussion, there are two main concernes about adding abrt-cli to Standard comps group: 1) There will be some notifications popping up which can confuse users. Not true. Nothing changes for desktop environments. Package abrt-desktop is already part of GNOME and Cinnamon comps groups. What we are talking about here is abrt-cli [1] - command line interface, which will let users to list, review and report crashes on their systems caught by abrt. Root is informed about crashes by email, normal users should not be affected. 2) Abrt is sending information by default without opt-in. Not true. Abrt only stores crash details localy unless user calls 'abrt-cli report' command, or enables uReports [2]. Abrt actually helps to find and solve problems [3] so we decided to add abrt-cli to Standard comps group for F21. Regards, Vaclav [1] http://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/Fedora_Draft_Documentation/0.1/html/System_Administrators_Guide/sect-abrt-cli.html [2] https://github.com/abrt/faf/wiki/uReport [3] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1036959 -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: ABRT in the comps group 'standard'
- Original Message - From: Václav Pavlín vpav...@redhat.com To: Development discussions related to Fedora devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Cc: Bill Nottingham nott...@redhat.com Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 12:54:27 PM Subject: Re: ABRT in the comps group 'standard' On 6.12.2013 10:56, Jakub Filak wrote: I'd like to add abrt-cli package to the comps group 'standard'. Regarding the discussion, there are two main concernes about adding abrt-cli to Standard comps group: 1) There will be some notifications popping up which can confuse users. Not true. Nothing changes for desktop environments. Package abrt-desktop is already part of GNOME and Cinnamon comps groups. What we are talking about here is abrt-cli [1] - command line interface, which will let users to list, review and report crashes on their systems caught by abrt. Root is informed about crashes by email, normal users should not be affected. 2) Abrt is sending information by default without opt-in. Not true. Abrt only stores crash details localy unless user calls 'abrt-cli report' command, or enables uReports [2]. Abrt actually helps to find and solve problems [3] so we decided to add abrt-cli to Standard comps group for F21. Sorry for posting more or less a +1 reply. If there is anything I like in Fedora, it is definitely its bug solving and bug reporting features. I currently view the things Fedora can do with core dumps, gdb, debuginfo, stack traces and bug reporting as maybe the only reason a developer would choose Fedora over other distribution for development apart from its very relation to Red Hat. I guess there is more than that, but this is the one I can see during my everyday use. Any improvement to those is great IMO. On the other hand, technical improvements are not everything, and ABRT is a tool that one would like to have at hand all the time when anything gets wrong. Having the CLI always installed sounds like a natural choice to me. Cheers, Pavel Regards, Vaclav [1] http://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/Fedora_Draft_Documentation/0.1/html/System_Administrators_Guide/sect-abrt-cli.html [2] https://github.com/abrt/faf/wiki/uReport [3] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1036959 -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: ABRT in the comps group 'standard'
On 12/06/2013 09:56 AM, Jakub Filak wrote: Hello, I'd like to add abrt-cli package to the comps group 'standard'. The package pulls core ABRT functionality for catching C/C++ crashes, uncaught Python exceptions, Kernel oopses and VMCore processing. There is a bugzilla bug requesting this change: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1025222 I'd like to hear your opinion about that. I would say that abrt should not be installed et all unless user has agreed to it at install time. JBG -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: ABRT in the comps group 'standard'
On 12/06/2013 12:14 PM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote: I would say that abrt should not be installed et all unless user has agreed to it at install time. +1 My mother would be puzzled, if ABRT would popup on her Fedora box. -- Miroslav Suchy, RHCE, RHCDS Red Hat, Software Engineer, #brno, #devexp, #fedora-buildsys -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: ABRT in the comps group 'standard'
Dne 6.12.2013 12:39, Miroslav Suchý napsal(a): On 12/06/2013 12:14 PM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote: I would say that abrt should not be installed et all unless user has agreed to it at install time. +1 My mother would be puzzled, if ABRT would popup on her Fedora box. Your mother will be puzzled with crashing application as well. Better to explain ABRT and have less crashing applications then the opposite. Vít -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: ABRT in the comps group 'standard'
On Pá 6. prosinec 2013, 12:39:09 CET, Miroslav Suchý wrote: On 12/06/2013 12:14 PM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote: I would say that abrt should not be installed et all unless user has agreed to it at install time. I think abrt serves as good source of info in case of unexpected crashes, which is quite important to have stable system. So although being puzzled is not very nice, being disappointed by crashing applications is much worse from my point of view. So try to look at it from broader perspective - I see more benefits in having abrt installed. +1 My mother would be puzzled, if ABRT would popup on her Fedora box. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: ABRT in the comps group 'standard'
On 12/06/2013 01:59 PM, Václav Pavlín wrote: I think abrt serves as good source of info in case of unexpected crashes, which is quite important to have stable system. So although being puzzled is not very nice, being disappointed by crashing applications is much worse from my point of view. So try to look at it from broader perspective - I see more benefits in having abrt installed. While this is true - my mother have no clue what Bugzilla means, and even what is bug report - well in her term it is phone call to me Son, some weird box pop up, what should I do? I already hit Esc and Enter and it still sit there. This is disadvantage of being popular. Not every user is power user. -- Miroslav Suchy, RHCE, RHCDS Red Hat, Software Engineer, #brno, #devexp, #fedora-buildsys -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: ABRT in the comps group 'standard'
On 12/06/2013 12:51 PM, Vít Ondruch wrote: Dne 6.12.2013 12:39, Miroslav Suchý napsal(a): On 12/06/2013 12:14 PM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote: I would say that abrt should not be installed et all unless user has agreed to it at install time. +1 My mother would be puzzled, if ABRT would popup on her Fedora box. Your mother will be puzzled with crashing application as well. Better to explain ABRT and have less crashing applications then the opposite. ABRT does not fix the application for his mother JBG -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: ABRT in the comps group 'standard'
On 12/06/2013 01:05 PM, Miroslav Suchý wrote: On 12/06/2013 01:59 PM, Václav Pavlín wrote: I think abrt serves as good source of info in case of unexpected crashes, which is quite important to have stable system. So although being puzzled is not very nice, being disappointed by crashing applications is much worse from my point of view. Again reports are one thing fixing is another... So try to look at it from broader perspective - I see more benefits in having abrt installed. While this is true - my mother have no clue what Bugzilla means, and even what is bug report - well in her term it is phone call to me Son, some weird box pop up, what should I do? I already hit Esc and Enter and it still sit there. This is disadvantage of being popular. Not every user is power user. As well as those user not being able to sanitize their log(s) so they might accidentally be submitting sensitive information... JBG -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: ABRT in the comps group 'standard'
On 12/06/2013 02:06 PM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote: On 12/06/2013 12:51 PM, Vít Ondruch wrote: Dne 6.12.2013 12:39, Miroslav Suchý napsal(a): On 12/06/2013 12:14 PM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote: I would say that abrt should not be installed et all unless user has agreed to it at install time. +1 My mother would be puzzled, if ABRT would popup on her Fedora box. Your mother will be puzzled with crashing application as well. Better to explain ABRT and have less crashing applications then the opposite. ABRT does not fix the application for his mother JBG Well, I also guess that his mother won't install Fedora on her computer by her self, so Mirek could uncheck the ABRT and tell Anaconda not to install it... --Jirka -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: ABRT in the comps group 'standard'
On 12/06/2013 12:14 PM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote: On 12/06/2013 09:56 AM, Jakub Filak wrote: Hello, I'd like to add abrt-cli package to the comps group 'standard'. The package pulls core ABRT functionality for catching C/C++ crashes, uncaught Python exceptions, Kernel oopses and VMCore processing. There is a bugzilla bug requesting this change: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1025222 I'd like to hear your opinion about that. I would say that abrt should not be installed et all unless user has agreed to it at install time. +1 Abort needs to remain opt-in (and remain fully uninstallable) Ralf -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: ABRT in the comps group 'standard'
On 12/06/2013 02:08 PM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote: On 12/06/2013 01:05 PM, Miroslav Suchý wrote: On 12/06/2013 01:59 PM, Václav Pavlín wrote: I think abrt serves as good source of info in case of unexpected crashes, which is quite important to have stable system. So although being puzzled is not very nice, being disappointed by crashing applications is much worse from my point of view. Again reports are one thing fixing is another... So try to look at it from broader perspective - I see more benefits in having abrt installed. While this is true - my mother have no clue what Bugzilla means, and even what is bug report - well in her term it is phone call to me Son, some weird box pop up, what should I do? I already hit Esc and Enter and it still sit there. This is disadvantage of being popular. Not every user is power user. As well as those user not being able to sanitize their log(s) so they might accidentally be submitting sensitive information... JBG ABRT can be configured to not bother users with reporting to bugzilla and only send a stripped information about the crash without any sensitive information [1]. So no need for users to sanitize their logs. --Jirka [1] https://github.com/abrt/faf/wiki/uReport -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: ABRT in the comps group 'standard'
Dne 6.12.2013 14:05, Miroslav Suchý napsal(a): On 12/06/2013 01:59 PM, Václav Pavlín wrote: I think abrt serves as good source of info in case of unexpected crashes, which is quite important to have stable system. So although being puzzled is not very nice, being disappointed by crashing applications is much worse from my point of view. So try to look at it from broader perspective - I see more benefits in having abrt installed. While this is true - my mother have no clue what Bugzilla means, and even what is bug report - well in her term it is phone call to me Son, some weird box pop up, what should I do? I already hit Esc and Enter and it still sit there. This is disadvantage of being popular. Not every user is power user. If I am not mistaken, ABRT can send ureports without any need to use BZ. And in G3, there popups just small notification. So you exaggerate a bit. Vít -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: ABRT in the comps group 'standard'
On 12/06/2013 02:10 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote: On 12/06/2013 12:14 PM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote: On 12/06/2013 09:56 AM, Jakub Filak wrote: Hello, I'd like to add abrt-cli package to the comps group 'standard'. The package pulls core ABRT functionality for catching C/C++ crashes, uncaught Python exceptions, Kernel oopses and VMCore processing. There is a bugzilla bug requesting this change: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1025222 I'd like to hear your opinion about that. I would say that abrt should not be installed et all unless user has agreed to it at install time. +1 Abort needs to remain opt-in (and remain fully uninstallable) Ralf Care to share the reason why? At least the first part.. --Jirka -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: ABRT in the comps group 'standard'
On 12/06/2013 01:59 PM, Václav Pavlín wrote: So try to look at it from broader perspective - I see more benefits in having abrt installed. Such as confidential business information being forwarded to RedHat and being snooped by the NSA to forward it to your enterprise's competitor? You might not have realized it, but the world has changed and become very intolerant towards any phone home functions. Ralf -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: ABRT in the comps group 'standard'
On 12/06/2013 01:14 PM, Vít Ondruch wrote: Dne 6.12.2013 14:05, Miroslav Suchý napsal(a): On 12/06/2013 01:59 PM, Václav Pavlín wrote: I think abrt serves as good source of info in case of unexpected crashes, which is quite important to have stable system. So although being puzzled is not very nice, being disappointed by crashing applications is much worse from my point of view. So try to look at it from broader perspective - I see more benefits in having abrt installed. While this is true - my mother have no clue what Bugzilla means, and even what is bug report - well in her term it is phone call to me Son, some weird box pop up, what should I do? I already hit Esc and Enter and it still sit there. This is disadvantage of being popular. Not every user is power user. If I am not mistaken, ABRT can send ureports without any need to use BZ. And in G3, there popups just small notification. So you exaggerate a bit. Popups on all desktop we ship? And how about embedded/server ( abrt outside desktop installs ) And what purpose does abrt serve if there aren't people fixing the issue it reports on the other end... No abrt should be opt-in not opt-out at install time. JBG -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: ABRT in the comps group 'standard'
On 12/06/2013 02:14 PM, Jiri Moskovcak wrote: On 12/06/2013 02:10 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote: On 12/06/2013 12:14 PM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote: On 12/06/2013 09:56 AM, Jakub Filak wrote: Hello, I'd like to add abrt-cli package to the comps group 'standard'. The package pulls core ABRT functionality for catching C/C++ crashes, uncaught Python exceptions, Kernel oopses and VMCore processing. There is a bugzilla bug requesting this change: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1025222 I'd like to hear your opinion about that. I would say that abrt should not be installed et all unless user has agreed to it at install time. +1 Abort needs to remain opt-in (and remain fully uninstallable) Ralf Care to share the reason why? At least the first part.. To leave users a choice of minimizing the risks of exposing their confidential and private data. To me, personally, the recent incidents with abrt have qualified abrt as not trustworthy and as a data privacy risk. I've banned it from my machines, because I do not trust abrt anymore. Ralf -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: ABRT in the comps group 'standard'
On 06.12.2013 14:34, Ralf Corsepius wrote: On 12/06/2013 02:14 PM, Jiri Moskovcak wrote: On 12/06/2013 02:10 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote: On 12/06/2013 12:14 PM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote: On 12/06/2013 09:56 AM, Jakub Filak wrote: Hello, I'd like to add abrt-cli package to the comps group 'standard'. The package pulls core ABRT functionality for catching C/C++ crashes, uncaught Python exceptions, Kernel oopses and VMCore processing. There is a bugzilla bug requesting this change: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1025222 I'd like to hear your opinion about that. I would say that abrt should not be installed et all unless user has agreed to it at install time. +1 Abort needs to remain opt-in (and remain fully uninstallable) Ralf Care to share the reason why? At least the first part.. To leave users a choice of minimizing the risks of exposing their confidential and private data. To me, personally, the recent incidents with abrt have qualified abrt as not trustworthy and as a data privacy risk. I've banned it from my machines, because I do not trust abrt anymore. Ralf ABRT does not send *any* information unless you agree to do it. Not even the anonymous reports. It is true that the settings could be in Anaconda and I think it belongs in there. But at the very moment this is not happening, so ABRT asks you on first launch. It is not ABRT's fault that the majority of users blindly clicks Next, Next, Next and enables the automatic sending. Additionally, if you want to prevent business information leak, do not connect your machines directly to the Internet. This approach has been working perfectly for many years and I don't think much has changed in that area lately. Michal -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: ABRT in the comps group 'standard'
On Fri, Dec 06, 2013 at 01:06:14PM +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote: My mother would be puzzled, if ABRT would popup on her Fedora box. Your mother will be puzzled with crashing application as well. Better to explain ABRT and have less crashing applications then the opposite. ABRT does not fix the application for his mother We all do fix the application for his mother, after it's reported by ABRT or any other means :-) -- Later, Lukas lzap Zapletal irc: lzap #theforeman -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: ABRT in the comps group 'standard'
On 12/06/2013 01:47 PM, Lukas Zapletal wrote: We all do fix the application for his mother, after it's reported by ABRT or any other means:-) No not really our distribution is filled with just packagers that dont know what to do with those reports... ABRT should not be installed by default people that know and what to provide feedback can install it afterwards. JBG -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: ABRT in the comps group 'standard'
On 12/06/2013 02:34 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote: On 12/06/2013 02:14 PM, Jiri Moskovcak wrote: On 12/06/2013 02:10 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote: On 12/06/2013 12:14 PM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote: On 12/06/2013 09:56 AM, Jakub Filak wrote: Hello, I'd like to add abrt-cli package to the comps group 'standard'. The package pulls core ABRT functionality for catching C/C++ crashes, uncaught Python exceptions, Kernel oopses and VMCore processing. There is a bugzilla bug requesting this change: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1025222 I'd like to hear your opinion about that. I would say that abrt should not be installed et all unless user has agreed to it at install time. +1 Abort needs to remain opt-in (and remain fully uninstallable) Ralf Care to share the reason why? At least the first part.. To leave users a choice of minimizing the risks of exposing their confidential and private data. To me, personally, the recent incidents with abrt have qualified abrt as not trustworthy and as a data privacy risk. I've banned it from my machines, because I do not trust abrt anymore. Care to share what the recent incidents means? This information might be useful to avoid such incidents in the future. --Jirka Ralf -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: ABRT in the comps group 'standard'
On 06.12.2013 14:51, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote: On 12/06/2013 01:47 PM, Lukas Zapletal wrote: We all do fix the application for his mother, after it's reported by ABRT or any other means:-) No not really our distribution is filled with just packagers that dont know what to do with those reports... ABRT should not be installed by default people that know and what to provide feedback can install it afterwards. JBG So they know what to do with hand-made bugs, but do not know what to do with ABRT bugs? That seems like something that could be fixed on ABRT side. Otherwise your argument is invalid. Having an overall idea of how often do people encounter problems is quite useful regardless of the fact that the maintainer will never care. Being able to identify the most frustrating problems based on real stats is much better than rely on Severity field in Bugzilla that is in many cases blindly set to high/urgent (if the Bugzilla is even filed within a finite time frame). I agree that Bugzilla is not very suitable to receive a massive amount automatic reports, but that is a subject for another discussion [1]. If a packager really does not want to receive ABRT bugzillas for his component, he can easily tune libreport to create a not-reportable file which will disable the reporting feature [2]. This way he will not be bothered by bug reports and at the same time the stats about his application can be collected. Additionally this can give a clue that even if the application is crashing to a lot of people, the maintainer is not going to do much about that. Michal [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure_Fedora_bug_tracker [2] http://mtoman.fedorapeople.org/raw/notreportable.png -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: ABRT in the comps group 'standard'
On 12/06/2013 02:45 PM, Michal Toman wrote: On 06.12.2013 14:34, Ralf Corsepius wrote: On 12/06/2013 02:14 PM, Jiri Moskovcak wrote: ABRT does not send *any* information unless you agree to do it. Not even the anonymous reports. It is true that the settings could be in Anaconda and I think it belongs in there. But at the very moment this is not happening, so ABRT asks you on first launch. It is not ABRT's fault that the majority of users blindly clicks Next, Next, Next and enables the automatic sending. Additionally, if you want to prevent business information leak, do not connect your machines directly to the Internet. I am talking not talking about highsecurity machines. I am talking about abrt passing on password, ips, filenames etc, This approach has been working perfectly for many years and I don't think much has changed in that area lately. There were reports of abrt sending out private and confidential information to the net and reports of abrt sending reports without inspection. I've seen the later happening to myself. I've seen many crashes of abrt itself - I.e. abrt is not working perfectly at all. To cut a long story short: To me, abrt the plague: As a user, as a package maintainer and as sysadmin. Ralf -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: ABRT in the comps group 'standard'
On 12/06/2013 04:07 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote: On 12/06/2013 02:45 PM, Michal Toman wrote: On 06.12.2013 14:34, Ralf Corsepius wrote: On 12/06/2013 02:14 PM, Jiri Moskovcak wrote: ABRT does not send *any* information unless you agree to do it. Not even the anonymous reports. It is true that the settings could be in Anaconda and I think it belongs in there. But at the very moment this is not happening, so ABRT asks you on first launch. It is not ABRT's fault that the majority of users blindly clicks Next, Next, Next and enables the automatic sending. Additionally, if you want to prevent business information leak, do not connect your machines directly to the Internet. I am talking not talking about highsecurity machines. I am talking about abrt passing on password, ips, filenames etc, This approach has been working perfectly for many years and I don't think much has changed in that area lately. There were reports of abrt sending out private and confidential information to the net and reports of abrt sending reports without inspection. - were are those reports? I've seen the later happening to myself. I've seen many crashes of abrt itself - I.e. abrt is not working perfectly at all. - that's interesting observation and quality indicator, because I've seen the following components crash a lot: - gnome-shell - blueman - kernel - pulseaudion - firefox - tracker - nautilus .. quite a long list of other components . - so ABRT doesn't seem to perform any worse than the other components in Fedora... To cut a long story short: To me, abrt the plague: As a user, as a package maintainer and as sysadmin. To cut the long story short - Thank you very much for your specific examples of such behavior, it's very helpful and the ABRT devels can react properly and fix these problems. --Jirka Ralf -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: ABRT in the comps group 'standard'
On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 10:56 AM, Jakub Filak jfi...@redhat.com wrote: I'd like to add abrt-cli package to the comps group 'standard'. The package pulls core ABRT functionality for catching C/C++ crashes, uncaught Python exceptions, Kernel oopses and VMCore processing. If -cli means no GUI, and thus no popups where the user can opt in to reporting data, what would the installed packages actually _do_ by default, without intentional configuration by user? Mirek -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: ABRT in the comps group 'standard'
Miroslav Suchý (msu...@redhat.com) said: On 12/06/2013 01:59 PM, Václav Pavlín wrote: I think abrt serves as good source of info in case of unexpected crashes, which is quite important to have stable system. So although being puzzled is not very nice, being disappointed by crashing applications is much worse from my point of view. So try to look at it from broader perspective - I see more benefits in having abrt installed. While this is true - my mother have no clue what Bugzilla means, and even what is bug report - well in her term it is phone call to me Son, some weird box pop up, what should I do? I already hit Esc and Enter and it still sit there. Well... 1) the abrt GUI is already included in multiple desktop environments 2) this request is about putting the daemon/recording functionality in the standard install; the GUI integration is a separate package In short: I do not think this proposed change affects the behavior of any of the desktops in terms of crash popups. Bill -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: ABRT in the comps group 'standard'
On Fri, 2013-12-06 at 16:07 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote: This approach has been working perfectly for many years and I don't think much has changed in that area lately. There were reports of abrt sending out private and confidential information to the net and reports of abrt sending reports without inspection. There was one particular crash which was leaking passwords in a way that made it very difficult for abrt to catch. I think there were two or three (not the vague two or three, but precisely either two, or three) reports affected. Pedro Francisco very smartly caught this and we locked down the affected bugs ASAP. I have never seen abrt sending reports without inspection. It starts out by popping up notifications that let you send a FAF report (which AIUI contains only the summary backtrace, and doesn't need inspection as there's no chance of it containing sensitive user data). I think there's a checkbox to have it send those FAF reports without showing a notification. But I don't believe it's possible for it to send out a full-on backtrace without the user explicitly requesting it via abrt-gui or abrt-cli. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: ABRT in the comps group 'standard'
On Fri, 2013-12-06 at 12:39 +0100, Miroslav Suchý wrote: On 12/06/2013 12:14 PM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote: I would say that abrt should not be installed et all unless user has agreed to it at install time. +1 My mother would be puzzled, if ABRT would popup on her Fedora box. That's not relevant to this discussion. We're talking about abrt-cli in @standard, which is a console utility. Your mother (i.e. an avatar for some inexperienced user) is unlikely to encounter it: it does not 'pop up' anywhere. (note, also, that since F19, abrt notifications don't run abrt-gui at all. They just notify you that something crashed. If you 'submit a report', it only sends it to faf. I don't much like this behaviour, but at least it's not confusing anyone's mother.) -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: ABRT in the comps group 'standard'
On Fri, 2013-12-06 at 13:18 +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote: And what purpose does abrt serve if there aren't people fixing the issue it reports on the other end... Well, that's easy enough to shoot down. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/buglist.cgi?bug_status=CLOSEDclassification=Fedoralimit=0list_id=1982726order=bug_id%20DESCquery_format=advancedresolution=ERRATAshort_desc=[abrt]short_desc_type=allwordssubstr 4,230 bugs with [abrt] in the summary have been closed as ERRATA since abrt was introduced. That's not nothing. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: ABRT in the comps group 'standard'
On Fri, Dec 06, 2013 at 12:08:22PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: On Fri, 2013-12-06 at 13:18 +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote: And what purpose does abrt serve if there aren't people fixing the issue it reports on the other end... Well, that's easy enough to shoot down. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/buglist.cgi?bug_status=CLOSEDclassification=Fedoralimit=0list_id=1982726order=bug_id%20DESCquery_format=advancedresolution=ERRATAshort_desc=[abrt]short_desc_type=allwordssubstr 4,230 bugs with [abrt] in the summary have been closed as ERRATA since abrt was introduced. That's not nothing. I can confirm that abrt reports have proven fruitful for systemd: quite a few crashes is special corner cases were caught and solved this way. Abrt reports contains full tracebacks *and* open-files lists, which can be great help. Zbyszek -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: ABRT in the comps group 'standard'
On Fri, 2013-12-06 at 20:06 +0100, Miloslav Trmač wrote: On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 10:56 AM, Jakub Filak jfi...@redhat.com wrote: I'd like to add abrt-cli package to the comps group 'standard'. The package pulls core ABRT functionality for catching C/C++ crashes, uncaught Python exceptions, Kernel oopses and VMCore processing. If -cli means no GUI, and thus no popups where the user can opt in to reporting data, what would the installed packages actually _do_ by default, without intentional configuration by user? Mirek abrt-cli is a virtual package which pulls all necessary packages for detection of C/C++ coredumps, Python exceptions and Kernel oopses. The package also pulls abrt-tui package which provides 'abrt-cli' executable which allows users to list all detected problems, report a problem, delete a problem and something more. root user is notified about detected problems via email. ABRT also provides console notifications shipped in abrt-console-notification package. The package installs a small script which prints a count of detected problems when someone logs in to the shell. Jakub -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: ABRT in the comps group 'standard'
On Fri, 2013-12-06 at 13:51 +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote: No not really our distribution is filled with just packagers that dont know what to do with those reports... So you're saying: Our maintainers can't fix bugs, why bother filing them at all?? That doesn't make sense to me at all. Maintainers that can fix bugs do. Ones that can't forward them upstream for the developers to look at. I remember this being brought up elsewhere already. Maintainers not knowing much about their packages isn't a tooling problem. +1 for abrt-cli in standard. Both my parents are completely novice users that run Fedora. They don't know what abrt is or what bugreporting is. If an abrt message pops up, they read that it said ... crash... and then they ignore it. It doesn't do any harm. -- Thanks, Warm regards, Ankur (FranciscoD) http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ankursinha Join Fedora! Come talk to us! http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Join_SIG signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
