Apport Hook

[Adam Sommer]

Binary package hint: apache2

Here's my attempt to add an apport package hook for Apache2. If there's anything I need to add, or adjust please let me know.

Thanks,
Adam

[papukaija (papukaija)]

Looking at the attachments in this bug report, I noticed that an attachment was not flagged as a patch. A patch contains changes to an Ubuntu package that will resolve a bug and this attachment is one! Subsequently, I've checked the patch flag for it. In the future when submitting patches please use the patch checkbox as there are some Launchpad searches that use this feature. You can learn more about the patch workflow at https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Bugs/Patches.

[Mathias Gug (mathiaz)]

Thanks for your proposal.

As there is already an apache2 hook for bug reporting (debian/apache2.2-common.bug-script) I think it'd make more sense to have the apport wrapper call the bug script (found in /usr/share/bug/apache2.2-common/script) and include its output in the report.

That way we'd have only place to gather debugging information which would be included in apport or reportbug.

[Benjamin Drung (bdrung)]

The .bug-script file is for collecting bug data for Debian. I am not sure if it can be integrated into the apport hook without huge work.

Now to the patch:
1) Please update it against the latest package version
2) Close this bug in debian/changelog
3) install needs to be called with '-D' to create the directory. Better use debian/<package>.install to install the apport hook instead of using debian/rules.
4) Should this apport hook belong to one binary package or to the source package?
5) In which binary package should it be placed?

Please resubsrcribe after ubuntu-sponsors after processing the above points.

[Adam Sommer (asommer)]

Thanks for the reviews. Attached is a patch against the latest version. I put the file in the apache2.2-common.install file because the description of apache2-common has: "This package contains the configuration and support scripts.".

To me the apport hook seems like a support script. But I'm a little fuzzy about when an apport hook should be in a source package versus a binary package... so if I'm wrong please let me know.

Thanks again.

[Mathias Gug (mathiaz)]

If the .bug-script doesn't ask any questions (ie is completely non-interactive - which I think is the case), calling the script from the apport hook via an apport_utils command and include its output as one field in the report seems reasonable.

[Benjamin Drung (bdrung)]

@Mathias: Ok, that's reasonable.

@Adam: If you have an apport hook for a binary package, it belong to the binary package that it is for. It will be only used if you report a bug against this binary package. In contrast a _source apport hook will be used for all binary packages that are build from this source and therefore should be put in one binary package that's always installed if you install one of the binary package.

[Thierry Carrez (ttx)]

A bit late for Maverick now that we are passed FinalFreeze. Please propose this again for sponsoring when Natty opens, and hopefully we'll pick it up quicker than we did for Maverick...

[Launchpad Janitor (janitor)]

This bug was fixed in the package apache2 - 2.2.16-4ubuntu2

---------------
apache2 (2.2.16-4ubuntu2) natty; urgency=low

  [Clint Byrum]
  * Adding plymouth aware passphrase dialog program ask-for-passphrase.
    (LP: #582963)
    + debian/control: apache2.2-common depends on bash for ask-for-passphrase
    + debian/config-dir/mods-available/ssl.conf:
      - SSLPassPhraseDialog now uses exec:/usr/share/apache2/ask-for-passhrase

  [Chuck Short]
  * Add apport hook. (LP: #609177)
    + debian/apache2.py, debian/apache2.2-common.install
 -- Chuck Short <email address hidden> Mon, 22 Nov 2010 09:43:43 -0500