Bug 875127

Thanks for the report, but even though it might be a little confusing it is an expected behaviour.

It is inconsistent with what occurs elsewhere. Is inconsistency expected?

(In reply to comment #2)
> It is inconsistent with what occurs elsewhere. Is inconsistency expected?

Specifically, the string should be identical to the string in
/etc/fedora-release.

[liveuser@localhost ~]$ cat /etc/fedora-release 
Fedora release 18 (Spherical Cow)
[liveuser@localhost ~]$ rpm -q fedora-release
fedora-release-18-0.8.noarch
[liveuser@localhost ~]$

*** Bug 875186 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

(In reply to comment #4)
> *** Bug 875186 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Not only is the string inconsistent with /etc/fedora-release, it is inconsistent with libreport itself:

For Bug 875186, I ran a test program twice:
1. Report a new bug.
2. Report a duplicate of that bug.

When the new bug was created, the "release" file was attached as Attachment 641739 [details]. That file contains the correct release string:

Fedora release 18 (Spherical Cow)

The duplicate report is Bug 875186, Comment 11. That comment contains the incorrect release string:

OS Release: Fedora release 18

Why is libreport using different strings for the original report and the duplicate report?

Tested with:

libreport-0:2.0.18-1.fc18.x86_64
Fedora-18-Beta-TC7-x86_64-Live-Desktop.iso

Command-line:
$ qemu-kvm -m 2048 -hda f18-test-2.img -cdrom ~/xfr/fedora/F18/F18-Beta/TC7/Fedora-18-Beta-TC7-x86_64-Live-Desktop.iso -usb -vga qxl -boot menu=on -usbdevice mouse

Created attachment 641779 [details]
python-meh-test-2.py test program

This is the test program used to generate Bug 875186 and Bug 875186, Comment 11.

It is slightly modified from the original:
http://vpodzime.fedorapeople.org/meh_test.py

Why is the OS Release string even reported with duplicates? The package string should already have the release number. For example, Bug 872833, Comment 15 has:

Package: anaconda-18.27-1.fc18.x86_64
OS Release: Fedora release 18

What would be more useful, though, is the exception string, because that isn't always identical in a duplicate report. For example, I reproduced this bug:

Bug 868589 - ValueError: Device 'vda1' not in tree 

My report turned out to be a duplicate, so I manually attached a log showing a traceback with a slightly different exception string:

ValueError: Device 'fedora-swap' not in tree
(Bug 868589, Comment 15)

(In reply to comment #7)
...
> What would be more useful, though, is the exception string, because that
> isn't always identical in a duplicate report.
...

Bug 875312 - exception string not included in report of duplicate

Maybe this should all go under one bug:
What information should be included with a comment reporting a duplicate bug?

(In reply to comment #7)
> Why is the OS Release string even reported with duplicates? The package
> string should already have the release number. For example, Bug 872833,
> Comment 15 has:
> 
> Package: anaconda-18.27-1.fc18.x86_64
> OS Release: Fedora release 18
...

This duplicate report from anaconda on the netinst CD has a Package string that does not include the release number or the architecture:
Bug 877692, Comment 17.

libreport doesn't appear to be installed on the netinst CD or the DVD, however.

==
Attempting to reproduce Bug 877692 on F18-Beta-TC9 netinst.

Package: anaconda-18.29
OS Release: Fedora release 18-Beta-TC9
==

(In reply to comment #9)
> (In reply to comment #7)
> > Why is the OS Release string even reported with duplicates? The package
> > string should already have the release number. For example, Bug 872833,
> > Comment 15 has:
> > 
> > Package: anaconda-18.27-1.fc18.x86_64
> > OS Release: Fedora release 18
> ...
> 
> This duplicate report from anaconda on the netinst CD has a Package string
> that does not include the release number or the architecture:
> Bug 877692, Comment 17.
> 
> libreport doesn't appear to be installed on the netinst CD or the DVD,
> however.
> 
> ==
> Attempting to reproduce Bug 877692 on F18-Beta-TC9 netinst.
> 
> Package: anaconda-18.29
> OS Release: Fedora release 18-Beta-TC9
> ==
The reason here is, that in the installation environment (DVD, netinst) RPM DB is missing and python-meh uses only the information it was given by anaconda (package name and version). On the other hand on liveCDs and of course on a running Fedora RPM DB is available and python-meh reads information from there and thus can use full package specification with name, version, release and architecture.

Thanks for the additional explanation:

# rpm -q kernel
package kernel is not installed

The OS Release strings differ too:

Bug 870586, Comment 23:
OS Release: Fedora release 18-Beta

Bug 870586, Comment 24:
OS Release: Fedora release 18

This message is a reminder that Fedora 18 is nearing its end of life.
Approximately 4 (four) weeks from now Fedora will stop maintaining
and issuing updates for Fedora 18. 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 WONTFIX if it remains open with a Fedora 
'version' of '18'.

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 prior to Fedora 18's end of life.

Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that we may not be 
able to fix it before Fedora 18 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 to Fedora 18's end of life.

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 18 changed to end-of-life (EOL) status on 2014-01-14. Fedora 18 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.