On Wed, Apr 24, 2024 at 6:26 PM Siteshwar Vashisht
wrote:
> Hello,
>
> This is a follow up on my previous email[1] about OpenScanHub Prototype
> for Fedora.
> Thank you to those who have provided early feedback. Your help is truly
> appreciated!
>
> I am writing this message to get feedback from
On Thu, Apr 25, 2024 at 2:18 AM Carlos Rodriguez-Fernandez <
carlosrodrifernan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Actually, I see what the problem is.
>
> The task is for 2.69-8 [1], but the subtask runs for 2.69-3 first to
> then have a reference for the diff. So I guess it will work next time a
> new versio
On Thu, Apr 25, 2024 at 2:12 AM Carlos Rodriguez-Fernandez <
carlosrodrifernan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Siteshwar,
>
> Thank you for the report. The libcap subtask failed [1] for a known
> issue, which is present in libcap 2.69-3 in Fedora rawhide, but was
> already fixed two weeks ago. Fedora ra
Actually, I see what the problem is.
The task is for 2.69-8 [1], but the subtask runs for 2.69-3 first to
then have a reference for the diff. So I guess it will work next time a
new version of libcap goes out.
[1] https://openscanhub.fedoraproject.org/task/83/
On 4/24/24 17:11, Carlos Rodrig
Hi Siteshwar,
Thank you for the report. The libcap subtask failed [1] for a known
issue, which is present in libcap 2.69-3 in Fedora rawhide, but was
already fixed two weeks ago. Fedora rawhide has 2.69-8, and I can
confirm it is the case when I run the fedora:41 images. 2.69-8 should
have be
Hello,
This is a follow up on my previous email[1] about OpenScanHub Prototype for
Fedora.
Thank you to those who have provided early feedback. Your help is truly
appreciated!
I am writing this message to get feedback from the community on possibly
new defects identified by static analyzers in Co
