Bug 1260216
| Summary: | os-release is missing options that are essentials for bug reporting | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Mikhail <mikhail.v.gavrilov> | ||||||
| Component: | generic-release | Assignee: | Tom "spot" Callaway <tcallawa> | ||||||
| Status: | CLOSED EOL | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> | ||||||
| Severity: | unspecified | Docs Contact: | |||||||
| Priority: | unspecified | ||||||||
| Version: | 23 | CC: | abrt-devel-list, bruno, dvlasenk, iprikryl, jberan, mhabrnal, michal.toman, mmilata, tcallawa | ||||||
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||||||||
| Target Release: | --- | ||||||||
| Hardware: | Unspecified | ||||||||
| OS: | Unspecified | ||||||||
| Whiteboard: | |||||||||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |||||||
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |||||||
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||||||||
| Last Closed: | 2016-12-20 14:34:33 UTC | Type: | Bug | ||||||
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- | ||||||
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |||||||
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |||||||
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |||||||
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |||||||
| Embargoed: | |||||||||
| Attachments: |
|
||||||||
Created attachment 1070406 [details]
ccpp-2015-09-04-23:28:53-2622
Thank you for the report! It looks like you are using 'generic-release' package and its /etc/os-release file seems a bit outdated to me: NAME=Generic VERSION="23 (Generic)" ID=generic VERSION_ID=23 PRETTY_NAME="Generic 23 (Generic)" ANSI_COLOR="0;34" CPE_NAME="cpe:/o:generic:generic:23" I propose to make generic-releases' os-release file more tightly integrated with Fedora: NAME=Fedora VERSION="23 (Generic)" ID=fedora VERSION_ID=23 PRETTY_NAME="Fedora 23 (Generic)" ANSI_COLOR="0;34" CPE_NAME="cpe:/o:fedoraproject:fedora:23" HOME_URL="https://fedoraproject.org/" BUG_REPORT_URL="https://bugzilla.redhat.com/" REDHAT_BUGZILLA_PRODUCT="Fedora" REDHAT_BUGZILLA_PRODUCT_VERSION=23 REDHAT_SUPPORT_PRODUCT="Fedora" REDHAT_SUPPORT_PRODUCT_VERSION=23 PRIVACY_POLICY_URL=https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal:PrivacyPolicy VARIANT="Generic" VARIANT_ID=generic These options are used by ABRT: * ID * VERSION_ID * REDHAT_BUGZILLA_PRODUCT * REDHAT_BUGZILLA_PRODUCT_VERSION * REDHAT_SUPPORT_PRODUCT * REDHAT_SUPPORT_PRODUCT_VERSION * VARIANT_ID I don't have a problem with that change. No. That's not at all right. The point of generic-release is to have a template package for people who want to strip out the "Fedora" trademark and spin their own derived version. Adding in Fedora specific items is wrong. I'd argue that ABRT needs to more gracefully handle a case where the os-release file doesn't have these fields, but, as a stop-gap, I'd be willing to amend the generic-release os-release file to add: REDHAT_BUGZILLA_PRODUCT="Generic" REDHAT_BUGZILLA_PRODUCT_VERSION="23" REDHAT_SUPPORT_PRODUCT="Generic" REDHAT_SUPPORT_PRODUCT_VERSION="23" VARIANT_ID=generic I suspect the result of this will be to have abrt trying in vain to open bugs against non-existant products, but the whole point of generic-release is that a system with it installed _IS NOT FEDORA_. I'll wait a bit before making the proposed change to see if anyone has any better ideas. (In reply to Tom "spot" Callaway from comment #4) > No. That's not at all right. The point of generic-release is to have a > template package for people who want to strip out the "Fedora" trademark and > spin their own derived version. Adding in Fedora specific items is wrong. > If generic-release is a template package, I don't understand why it lives in Fedora repositories and users can install it. Mikhail, if you want to report bugs using ABRT, you need to switch from generic-release to fedora-release. > I'd argue that ABRT needs to more gracefully handle a case where the > os-release file doesn't have these fields, Good point! https://github.com/abrt/faf/issues/461 > but, as a stop-gap, I'd be > willing to amend the generic-release os-release file to add: > > REDHAT_BUGZILLA_PRODUCT="Generic" > REDHAT_BUGZILLA_PRODUCT_VERSION="23" > REDHAT_SUPPORT_PRODUCT="Generic" > REDHAT_SUPPORT_PRODUCT_VERSION="23" > VARIANT_ID=generic > > I suspect the result of this will be to have abrt trying in vain to open > bugs against non-existant products, but the whole point of generic-release > is that a system with it installed _IS NOT FEDORA_. > If a system with generic-release installed _IS NOT FEDORA_, then we don't need to add the fields. Because REDHAT_* fields are useful only for Red Hat Bugzilla and https://retrace.fedoraproject.org/ and both services support only Fedora (+RHEL, +CentOS). VARIANT_ID does not make sense at all in this case. Guys I use Fedlet from this location: https://www.happyassassin.net/fedlet-a-fedora-remix-for-bay-trail-tablets/ But, after several updates I see that all packages replaced from upstream fedora even kernel package. And problems which I see also persist in pure fedora. Therefore, I see no reason to deny that these reports. > Mikhail, if you want to report bugs using ABRT, you need to switch from generic-release to fedora-release. I should manually edit /etc/os-release file? # ls -l /etc/yum.repos.d/ total 20 -rw-r--r--. 1 root root 386 Feb 12 2014 fedlet.repo -rw-r--r--. 1 root root 1253 Jul 15 19:51 fedora.repo -rw-r--r--. 1 root root 1270 Jul 15 19:51 fedora-updates.repo -rw-r--r--. 1 root root 1328 Jul 15 19:51 fedora-updates-testing.repo -rw-r--r--. 1 root root 171 Sep 8 13:57 google-chrome.repo This message is a reminder that Fedora 23 is nearing its end of life. Approximately 4 (four) weeks from now Fedora will stop maintaining and issuing updates for Fedora 23. It is Fedora's policy to close all bug reports from releases that are no longer maintained. At that time this bug will be closed as EOL if it remains open with a Fedora 'version' of '23'. Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, simply change the 'version' to a later Fedora version. Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that we were not able to fix it before Fedora 23 is end of life. If you would still like to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it against a later version of Fedora, you are encouraged change the 'version' to a later Fedora version prior this bug is closed as described in the policy above. Although we aim to fix as many bugs as possible during every release's lifetime, sometimes those efforts are overtaken by events. Often a more recent Fedora release includes newer upstream software that fixes bugs or makes them obsolete. Fedora 23 changed to end-of-life (EOL) status on 2016-12-20. Fedora 23 is no longer maintained, which means that it will not receive any further security or bug fix updates. As a result we are closing this bug. If you can reproduce this bug against a currently maintained version of Fedora please feel free to reopen this bug against that version. If you are unable to reopen this bug, please file a new report against the current release. If you experience problems, please add a comment to this bug. Thank you for reporting this bug and we are sorry it could not be fixed. |
Created attachment 1070405 [details] oops-2015-09-04-12:08:00-746-0 Description of problem: --- Running report_uReport --- Server responded with an error: 'uReport data is invalid.' reporter-ureport failed with exit code 1 ('report_uReport' exited with 1)