Bug 149459
| Summary: | 2 * bad format in printf problems | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | David Binderman <dcb314> |
| Component: | cfengine | Assignee: | Jeff Sheltren <sheltren> |
| Status: | CLOSED UPSTREAM | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | medium | ||
| Version: | 3 | ||
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2005-07-05 21:47:55 UTC | Type: | --- |
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
| Embargoed: | |||
Please see whether you can reproduce this with the newer cfengine from Fedora Core Development. Are you compiling with gcc4? If so, there are some issues with the current release and I'm working with the author to get it fixed. If you're using gcc3, it should compile fine. You can also try version 2.1.13 which is now in extras. >Are you compiling with gcc4? No - Intel 8.1 - much better error messages - see above. >You can also try version 2.1.13 which is now in extras. Sorry, but I won't be able to do this. Suggest you might like to use Mark 1 eyeball to confirm that the problems I found are gone in the latest version. OK, I've passed on your errors to Mark (the author of cfengine). Hopefully they will get fixed in the next upstream release. |
Description of problem: I just tried to compile package cfengine-2.1.9-2 from Redhat Fedora Extras development tree. The compiler said 1. eval.c(653): warning #267: the format string requires additional arguments The source code is Debug4("Checking AND Atom %s?\n"); %s specifier, not trailing parameter. 2. cfexecd.c(931): warning #269: invalid format string conversion The source code is sscanf(to,"%s@%.64s",domain); . not valid in %s specifier. Maybe sscanf(to,"%s@%64s",domain); was what the programmer intended ? Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): How reproducible: Steps to Reproduce: 1. 2. 3. Actual results: Expected results: Additional info: