Note: This is a beta release of Red Hat Bugzilla 5.0. The data contained within is a snapshot of the live data so any changes you make will not be reflected in the production Bugzilla. Also email is disabled so feel free to test any aspect of the site that you want. File any problems you find or give feedback here.

Bug 456140

Summary: frysk SRPM doesn't build - sscanf format problem
Product: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5 Reporter: Vic <rhbugs>
Component: fryskAssignee: Eric Bachalo <ebachalo>
Status: CLOSED WONTFIX QA Contact: Len DiMaggio <ldimaggi>
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: low    
Version: 5.2CC: ebachalo, kasal, mcvet, npremji, pmuldoon, scox
Target Milestone: rc   
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: All   
OS: Linux   
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2011-02-15 09:39:50 UTC Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:

Description Vic 2008-07-21 17:46:07 UTC
Description of problem:
Trying to build frysk- fails

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):

How reproducible:

Steps to Reproduce:
1. rpmbuild  --rebuild the SRPM
2. Watch the error output
Actual results:
Build fails with "unknown conversion" at line 135 of

Expected results:
Build completion...

Additional info:

The build fails with an "unknown conversion type character" passed to sscanf -
it's trying to use %m. The man page for sscanf doesn't know about that
conversion, and earlier tarballs didn't use it.

Is this using a funky version of sscanf (that isn't listed in BuildRequires), or
is this simply a typo?

Comment 1 Andrew Cagney 2008-07-22 14:28:34 UTC
Which gcc and glibc are installed?

The %m isn't a typo, rather an not-so-well-documented extension.  That it is
failing for you but built within the build system is very puzzling.

Comment 2 Vic 2008-07-22 14:35:25 UTC
gcc is 4.1.1-52.el5 (4.1.2-42.el5 is building as I type this...)
glibc is 2.5.24

Comment 3 Andrew Cagney 2008-07-22 16:05:08 UTC
You'll need to use the GCC shipped in 5.2.  Which includes fixes for problems
such as

Comment 4 Vic 2008-07-22 16:32:12 UTC
Should that not therefore be a BuildRequires entry?

Comment 5 Andrew Cagney 2008-07-22 16:41:02 UTC
(In reply to comment #4)
> Should that not therefore be a BuildRequires entry?

Yes, good point.