<html> <head> <base href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/"> </head> <body> <div> <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_NEW " title="NEW - RFE: Collect Python backtraces" href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=82507#c9">Comment # 9</a> on <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_NEW " title="NEW - RFE: Collect Python backtraces" href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=82507">bug 82507</a> from <a class="email" href="mailto:lennart@poettering.net" title="Lennart Poettering <lennart@poettering.net>"> Lennart Poettering</a> <pre>Just to say this: I fully agree with Zbigniew here: lower-level components should not depend on higher level components, and not be client to them. We try to stack our stuff so that higher level components consume interfaces and get notifications from lower level components, but as soon as we start doing the reverse we are doing something wrong I think. I do not believe that coredumpctl and our coredump handling is the only one true handling that everybody should use though. We implement a useful baseline I think and cover a few things we think make sense, but I am not convinced we really should try to cover everything under the sun a bug tracking system might want to do. Note that you can get notifications from the journal when something is dropped there. Thus, packages could listen for coredumps on the system this way, and then process them shortly after they happen, maybe enhancing metadata or so. The resulting report they could then also dump into the journal if they like, but there's no reason they really have to.</pre> </div> <hr> You are receiving this mail because: <ul> <li>You are the QA Contact for the bug.</li> <li>You are the assignee for the bug.</li> </ul> </body> </html>