[MERGE] use apport to get richer detail in bug reports.

[Martin Pool]

On  8 Nov 2006, Robert Collins <robertc at robertcollins.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-11-08 at 15:22 +1100, Martin Pool wrote:
> 
> > Ok, +1.
> 
> Thanks. If its ok as-is, I'll merge it with a bug report to do more
> later - mid-sprint is not a good time for extensive hacking.

Fine.

> > > When apport is not present, the old interface is used. I think it would
> > > be a good idea to change that to a file-writing interface as well, but
> > > wasn't sure if that would get universal agreement or not ;).
> > 
> > Ok with me as long as -Derror still sends them to stderr.
> 
> What is 'them' here ? The backtrace ?

Yes.

> Should -Derror disable the apport usage ? (which it can do by setting
> bzrlib.trace._use_apport to False).

Probably not?  I don't have a strong opinion.

> It only returns the tuple for testing, so I'm inclined to say 'meh.'. We
> can always change it later.

Fine.

> I was preserving the old interface. As we have agreement in principle to
> always generate a file, we can use the entire text, and apport will
> simply control the amount of detail we get, not user interface.

Great.

-- 
Martin