Why don't we ask for kern.log?

[Brian Murray]

On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 12:27:33PM +0200, Jeremy Foshee wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 12:29:16AM -0400, Steven wrote:
> > Thanks JFo, great response as always :)
> > 
> > My main question was whether there was a specific reason for me *not* to ask
> > for kern.log, such as personal info or other rules it would break or problems
> > it would cause. Good to know that's not the case.
> > 
> > I work triaging xserver-xorg-video-intel bugs, so when X freezes, you usually
> > can't switch to another VT, so the only way to get dmesg is to ask the reporter
> > to SSH in, which requires another computer and a good deal of technical
> > know-how. Thus I find it easier to just ask for kern.log after they recover.
> > 
> > Technically I guess I could ask for dmesg.0 instead, but drm.debug makes this
> > so verbose that it fills the buffer too quickly and only contains the boot
> > info, so we usually lose the dmesg for the actual error, since it usually
> > occurs after the buffer's already filled up. So asking for kern.log is rather
> > foolproof in these cases.
> >
> Actually, kern.log would be perfect in those situations, as you point
> out. The team agrees. This is oen of those use cases that wasn't thought
> of at the time. The consensus is, kern.log is perfect for your use case,
> but we probably won't add it to the apport log collection due to it
> being extra for most of the bugs that get filed.

However, perhaps kern.log should be added to the log files that X
packages gather since it seems to be particularly useful there.

-- 
Brian Murray
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-bugsquad/attachments/20100720/5b32a1d9/attachment.sig>