Re: pkg/52220: pkgsrc ../security/gnutls-3.5.9 fails to build on i386

[zilog%sdf.org@localhost]

The following reply was made to PR pkg/52220; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: zilog%sdf.org@localhost
To: pkgsrc-bugs%netbsd.org@localhost, pkg-manager%netbsd.org@localhost, gnats-bugs%NetBSD.org@localhost,
        gnats-admin%netbsd.org@localhost
Cc: 
Subject: Re: pkg/52220: pkgsrc ../security/gnutls-3.5.9 fails to build on i386
Date: Wed, 10 May 2017 06:24:19 -0600

 Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg%bec.de@localhost> wrote:
 
 > The following reply was made to PR pkg/52220; it has been noted by GNATS.
 >
 > From: Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg%bec.de@localhost>
 > To: gnats-bugs%NetBSD.org@localhost
 > Cc: pkg-manager%netbsd.org@localhost, gnats-admin%netbsd.org@localhost, pkgsrc-bugs%netbsd.org@localhost
 > Subject: Re: pkg/52220: pkgsrc ../security/gnutls-3.5.9 fails to build on i386
 > Date: Wed, 10 May 2017 13:01:04 +0200
 >
 >  On Mon, May 08, 2017 at 01:55:00AM +0000, zilog%sdf.org@localhost wrote:
 >  > 	The ../security/gnutls package fails to build on i386.  Build
 >  >         fails with follwoing errors:
 >  
 >  This is misleading. The problem is not gnutls, but the broken
 >  libhogweed.so.
 >  
 
 Thanks for the feedback. I'm not a developer but yes, I noticed that
 as well and mentioned it in the PR.  There is no libhogweed package in the pkgsrc
 tree; the gnutls package imports it so I stand by my "../security/gnutls package
 fails to build .." statement. Do you feel it would make sense to file a PR for
 a non-existent package?
 
 Jeff