This plugin allows your Foreman instance to receive bug reports
generated on your hosts by ABRT (Automatic Bug Reporting Tool). These
reports can be inspected and eventually forwarded to the ABRT server.
It requires RHEL 7 or clone on both server and clients, because abrt
package in RHEL 6 does not have enough features. We are currently
discussing how to address that.
If you are interested, please have a look on the README how to set
things up.
Which version or feature is needed? I can perhaps push a newer version
(either 1.4.0 or 1.9.x), or backport the necessary patch if possible.
···
On 07/10/14 14:28, Lukas Zapletal wrote:
> To test abrt on RHEL6 you need:
>
> - newer abrt builds: https://copr.fedoraproject.org/coprs/jfilak/abrt/
> - newer rubygem-ffi than the one from epel6:
I was little bit confused, you do NOT need new abrt on the server
(Foreman) to have this feature. So scratch the above line.
> > - newer rubygem-ffi than the one from epel6:
>
> Which version or feature is needed? I can perhaps push a newer version
> (either 1.4.0 or 1.9.x), or backport the necessary patch if possible.
We tested with latest stable ffi rubygem (https://rubygems.org/gems/ffi)
and it works fine. But Martin found three small bugs there and he will
be likely releasing 0.0.5 version of the abrt proxy plugin to fix those
(all three patches are RHEL6-only releated - Ruby 1.8).
So good news, ABRT will be likely supported on RHEL6.
Sending ABRT reports from RHEL6 is another story of course, there is a
discussion to backport required features into RHEL6.
It's unlikely though that you need the latest version, and it would
probably meet some resistance to put it in EPEL6 in case it breaks API.
What's required precisely?
···
On 08/10/14 09:35, Lukas Zapletal wrote:
>>> - newer rubygem-ffi than the one from epel6:
>>
>> Which version or feature is needed? I can perhaps push a newer version
>> (either 1.4.0 or 1.9.x), or backport the necessary patch if possible.
>
> We tested with latest stable ffi rubygem (https://rubygems.org/gems/ffi)
> and it works fine. But Martin found three small bugs there and he will
> be likely releasing 0.0.5 version of the abrt proxy plugin to fix those
> (all three patches are RHEL6-only releated - Ruby 1.8).
> >>> - newer rubygem-ffi than the one from epel6:
> >>
> >> Which version or feature is needed? I can perhaps push a newer version
> >> (either 1.4.0 or 1.9.x), or backport the necessary patch if possible.
> >
> > We tested with latest stable ffi rubygem (https://rubygems.org/gems/ffi)
> > and it works fine. But Martin found three small bugs there and he will
> > be likely releasing 0.0.5 version of the abrt proxy plugin to fix those
> > (all three patches are RHEL6-only releated - Ruby 1.8).
>
> It's unlikely though that you need the latest version, and it would
> probably meet some resistance to put it in EPEL6 in case it breaks API.
> What's required precisely?
Ok we have tested with Martin that version 1.0.11 works fine (epel has
1.0.9). This is the bug that we hit:
···
On Wed, Oct 08, 2014 at 11:09:29 +0200, Lukas Zapletal wrote:
> Hey,
>
> > >>> - newer rubygem-ffi than the one from epel6:
> > >>
> > >> Which version or feature is needed? I can perhaps push a newer version
> > >> (either 1.4.0 or 1.9.x), or backport the necessary patch if possible.
> > >
> > > We tested with latest stable ffi rubygem (https://rubygems.org/gems/ffi)
> > > and it works fine. But Martin found three small bugs there and he will
> > > be likely releasing 0.0.5 version of the abrt proxy plugin to fix those
> > > (all three patches are RHEL6-only releated - Ruby 1.8).
> >
> > It's unlikely though that you need the latest version, and it would
> > probably meet some resistance to put it in EPEL6 in case it breaks API.
> > What's required precisely?
>
> Ok we have tested with Martin that version 1.0.11 works fine (epel has
> 1.0.9). This is the bug that we hit:
>
> https://github.com/ffi/ffi/issues/114
>
> There's a patch as well. Not sure if we want to bump the version in EPEL
> since many rubygems could depend on this.
···
On 08/10/14 10:24, Martin Milata wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 08, 2014 at 11:09:29 +0200, Lukas Zapletal wrote:
>> Hey,
>>
>>>>>> - newer rubygem-ffi than the one from epel6:
>>>>>
>>>>> Which version or feature is needed? I can perhaps push a newer version
>>>>> (either 1.4.0 or 1.9.x), or backport the necessary patch if possible.
>>>>
>>>> We tested with latest stable ffi rubygem (https://rubygems.org/gems/ffi)
>>>> and it works fine. But Martin found three small bugs there and he will
>>>> be likely releasing 0.0.5 version of the abrt proxy plugin to fix those
>>>> (all three patches are RHEL6-only releated - Ruby 1.8).
>>>
>>> It's unlikely though that you need the latest version, and it would
>>> probably meet some resistance to put it in EPEL6 in case it breaks API.
>>> What's required precisely?
>>
>> Ok we have tested with Martin that version 1.0.11 works fine (epel has
>> 1.0.9). This is the bug that we hit:
>>
>> https://github.com/ffi/ffi/issues/114
>>
>> There's a patch as well. Not sure if we want to bump the version in EPEL
>> since many rubygems could depend on this.
>
> In case we're going the backport way, it appears the two commits
> mentioned in https://github.com/ffi/ffi/pull/172 are needed as well.
···
On Wed, Oct 08, 2014 at 10:52:50 +0100, Dominic Cleal wrote:
> On 08/10/14 10:24, Martin Milata wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 08, 2014 at 11:09:29 +0200, Lukas Zapletal wrote:
> >> Hey,
> >>
> >>>>>> - newer rubygem-ffi than the one from epel6:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Which version or feature is needed? I can perhaps push a newer version
> >>>>> (either 1.4.0 or 1.9.x), or backport the necessary patch if possible.
> >>>>
> >>>> We tested with latest stable ffi rubygem (https://rubygems.org/gems/ffi)
> >>>> and it works fine. But Martin found three small bugs there and he will
> >>>> be likely releasing 0.0.5 version of the abrt proxy plugin to fix those
> >>>> (all three patches are RHEL6-only releated - Ruby 1.8).
> >>>
> >>> It's unlikely though that you need the latest version, and it would
> >>> probably meet some resistance to put it in EPEL6 in case it breaks API.
> >>> What's required precisely?
> >>
> >> Ok we have tested with Martin that version 1.0.11 works fine (epel has
> >> 1.0.9). This is the bug that we hit:
> >>
> >> https://github.com/ffi/ffi/issues/114
> >>
> >> There's a patch as well. Not sure if we want to bump the version in EPEL
> >> since many rubygems could depend on this.
> >
> > In case we're going the backport way, it appears the two commits
> > mentioned in https://github.com/ffi/ffi/pull/172 are needed as well.
>
> Good catch. Could you give
> http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7798462 a quick try
> please? If that's good, I'll submit an update.
···
On 08/10/14 13:34, Martin Milata wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 08, 2014 at 10:52:50 +0100, Dominic Cleal wrote:
>> On 08/10/14 10:24, Martin Milata wrote:
>>> On Wed, Oct 08, 2014 at 11:09:29 +0200, Lukas Zapletal wrote:
>>>> Hey,
>>>>
>>>>>>>> - newer rubygem-ffi than the one from epel6:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Which version or feature is needed? I can perhaps push a newer version
>>>>>>> (either 1.4.0 or 1.9.x), or backport the necessary patch if possible.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We tested with latest stable ffi rubygem (https://rubygems.org/gems/ffi)
>>>>>> and it works fine. But Martin found three small bugs there and he will
>>>>>> be likely releasing 0.0.5 version of the abrt proxy plugin to fix those
>>>>>> (all three patches are RHEL6-only releated - Ruby 1.8).
>>>>>
>>>>> It's unlikely though that you need the latest version, and it would
>>>>> probably meet some resistance to put it in EPEL6 in case it breaks API.
>>>>> What's required precisely?
>>>>
>>>> Ok we have tested with Martin that version 1.0.11 works fine (epel has
>>>> 1.0.9). This is the bug that we hit:
>>>>
>>>> https://github.com/ffi/ffi/issues/114
>>>>
>>>> There's a patch as well. Not sure if we want to bump the version in EPEL
>>>> since many rubygems could depend on this.
>>>
>>> In case we're going the backport way, it appears the two commits
>>> mentioned in https://github.com/ffi/ffi/pull/172 are needed as well.
>>
>> Good catch. Could you give
>> http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7798462 a quick try
>> please? If that's good, I'll submit an update.
>
> Seems to work fine.
