On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 06:13:53PM +0100, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
On Wed, 14 Feb 2018 11:02:52 +0100, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
> If there is little interest for this project, we will likely decommission it in
> the coming weeks (say end of March).
The darkserver project ws initiated AFAIK by me as there is always a problem
how to reproduce an ABRT bugreport.
The darkserver usability problems were related to each other,
a chicken-and-egg problem:
* It never really started working. When I tried to use it once upon few
months when I found time to process some ABRT bugreports which were not
obvious enough darkserver failed and after contacting Kushal Das
(darkserver author) he found some new software or data bug why it did not
work that time.
* There was never a tool making it convenient enough to reconstruct the
tree of files based on their build-ids.
* There was never enough users (was there any besides me?) that started using
darkserver, because of the two problems above.
So I believe darkserver would be great but not in its current state of
functionality.
Also I believe ABRT project already contains most of the infrastructure and
code required, I believe darkserver could be rather just few lines of code
added to the ABRT project - that is to interactively run the crashed program
with all matching versions of libraries - not just getting the non-interative
core file backtrace (which ABRT submits to Bugzilla).
So what do you advice as course of action here, should we fix darkserver or move
its functionality to ABRT?
The later is tempting to me if it's just a few lines of code added on an app we
already maintain.
Pierre
PS: Kushal no longer work at RH so this email won't work (I've contacted him
before starting this conversation though)