[PATCH] drkonqi: s/backtrace/backtrace full/g

[Frans Englich]

On Tuesday 27 January 2004 14:49, Dominique Devriese wrote:
> Stephan Kulow writes:
> > On Tuesday 27 January 2004 13:59, Dominique Devriese wrote:
> >> Stephan Kulow writes:
> >> > On Tuesday 27 January 2004 12:26, Dominique Devriese wrote:
> >> >> I'm going to commit this to HEAD unless someone objects.
> >> >
> >> > I think, what's needed here is a check if the first bt command
> >> > gave any useful output. Otherwise the full one won't add much but
> >> > nonsense.
> >>
> >> Is it a problem to add some more nonsense ?
> >
> > Yes, because they just cause work load.
>
> As I already said, the major workload is gdb loading symbols.  Doing
> another backtrace won't add that much overhead.  Anyway, I don't think
> it is a very significant problem
>
> >> > I would really like to have code in there that hides the fact
> >> > that there is a bug tracking system if the user runs the usual
> >> > gentoo or mandrake packages ;(
> >>
> >> Sorry, I'm not familiar with those packages, but I assume you're
> >> implying they're broken...  Anyway, this is not really related, or
> >> is it ?
> >
> > Not broken in the usual sense. Just stripped of any information that
> > would make it possible to make sense out of the backtrace
>
> Ok, I see what you mean.  For this purpose, I have some Debian
> packages compiled with debugging support on
> http://www.kde-debian.org/~domi/debian-kde-debug.html ( the host is
> having problems again atm though :( ).  Maybe the Mandrake folk have
> something similar ?
>
> I suppose we could grep the gdb output for "(No debugging symbols
> found)" or sth like that, and suggest the user downloads debugging
> binaries if so ?

But the majority of users doesn't even know what "debug" or "binaries" mean, 
such an encouragement wouldn't make much use. Chris, in this thread, nicely 
highlights that a typical user won't make sense out of this kind of stuff.

			Frans