Bug 155807 - mailsync-5.2.1-8: 2 * printf problems
Summary: mailsync-5.2.1-8: 2 * printf problems
Status: VERIFIED FIXED
Alias: None
Product: SUSE Linux 10.1
Classification: openSUSE
Component: Basesystem (show other bugs)
Version: unspecified
Hardware: All SuSE Linux 10.1
: P5 - None : Minor (vote)
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Forgotten User ZhJd0F0L3x
QA Contact: E-mail List
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2006-03-07 18:13 UTC by David Binderman
Modified: 2007-06-05 11:20 UTC (History)
0 users

See Also:
Found By: Other
Services Priority:
Business Priority:
Blocker: ---
Marketing QA Status: ---
IT Deployment: ---


Attachments
fix (1.29 KB, text/x-diff)
2006-07-03 15:17 UTC, Forgotten User ZhJd0F0L3x
Details

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description David Binderman 2006-03-07 18:13:55 UTC
I just tried to compile package mailsync-5.2.1-8 with the GNU C compiler.

It said

1.

channel.cc:106: warning: too few arguments for format

The source code is

      fprintf( stderr, "Info: The msinfo box %s contains a message with"
                       " missing \"From\" or \"Subject\" header information\n");

I agree with the compiler.  One %s specifier, no trailing parameter.
Suggest code rework.

2.

store.cc:458: warning: too few arguments for format

The source code is

	printf( "No driver for store %s found\n");

Same again.
Comment 1 Forgotten User ZhJd0F0L3x 2006-03-08 16:39:02 UTC
the interesting thing is: where did you get the package from? AFAICS it is not included in any 10.1 beta and 10.0 still contains mailsync-5.2.1-5 ;-)
Comment 2 David Binderman 2006-03-08 18:54:20 UTC
(In reply to comment #1)
> the interesting thing is: where did you get the package from? AFAICS it is not
> included in any 10.1 beta and 10.0 still contains mailsync-5.2.1-5 ;-)

From the factory.

It does cause me some concern that you claim that this version of
this package isn't in any 10.1 beta.

Am I correct in assuming that all beta versions of 10.1 are 
snapshots of the factory [ until at least the 10.1 release 
candidates] ?


Comment 3 Forgotten User ZhJd0F0L3x 2006-03-08 19:18:15 UTC
(In reply to comment #2)

> From the factory.

ok, i didn't think of that :-)
 
> It does cause me some concern that you claim that this version of
> this package isn't in any 10.1 beta.

Well, looking at the code quality, i do not really want to have it in a product where i have to support it ;-).
But i will fix those errors. Thanks for reporting.

> Am I correct in assuming that all beta versions of 10.1 are 
> snapshots of the factory [ until at least the 10.1 release 
> candidates] ?

I think so, yes.
Comment 4 Forgotten User ZhJd0F0L3x 2006-07-03 15:17:38 UTC
Created attachment 92441 [details]
fix

i submitted a package with this fix to the build system, so it should end up in factory soon.
Comment 5 Forgotten User ZhJd0F0L3x 2006-07-03 15:18:03 UTC
fixed package submitted