Bugzilla Bug 143519

It seems that RDEPEND="gnutls? ( dev-libs/libtasn1 )" needs to be added to the
dependencies of exim-4.62.  When building with USE="X gnutls ipv6 ldap pam perl
sasl sqlite ssl -dnsdb -exiscan -exiscan-acl -lmtp -mailwrapper -mbx -mysql
-nis -postgres -spf -srs -syslog -tcpd" I received the following error which
went away after I installed libtasn1-0.2.18:

gcc -o exim
/usr/lib/gcc/i586-pc-linux-gnu/4.1.1/../../../../i586-pc-linux-gnu/bin/ld:
cannot find -ltasn1
collect2: ld returned 1 exit status
make[1]: *** [exim] Error 1
make[1]: Leaving directory
`/mnt/storage/local/var/tmp/portage/exim-4.62/work/exim-4.62/build-exim-gentoo'
make: *** [go] Error 2

!!! ERROR: mail-mta/exim-4.62 failed.
Call stack:
  ebuild.sh, line 1543:   Called dyn_compile
  ebuild.sh, line 938:   Called src_compile
  exim-4.62.ebuild, line 216:   Called die

CCing QA, I've had enough... Stop re-assigning the bugs to yourself only to
keep ignoring them for ages.

Fixed.

(In reply to comment #2)
> Fixed.
> 

Opfer: please read the Metadata for an ebuild before touching that ebuild. I
believe this commit goes against good gentoo etiquette.

(In reply to comment #3)
> Opfer: please read the Metadata for an ebuild before touching that ebuild. I
> believe this commit goes against good gentoo etiquette.

I thought the whole point of the recent discussions on -dev, the Coc and the
Proctors, were, in essence, to try and get people to be less territorial about
their packages.

> I thought the whole point of the recent discussions on -dev, the Coc and the
> Proctors, were, in essence, to try and get people to be less territorial about
> their packages.
> 

-dev is too noisy to read. and if you could provide references for the others
i'd appreciate it. 

(I don't object to the work opfer: the fix is good thanks, but i'd have
preferred it if you'd have spoken to me first.)

(In reply to comment #3)
> Opfer: please read the Metadata for an ebuild before touching that ebuild. I
> believe this commit goes against good gentoo etiquette.

I believe leaving broken junk in the tree is against good developer etiquette.
Stop moaning already, you had months to damn fix this yourself, you just didn't
care.

(In reply to comment #5)
> (I don't object to the work opfer: the fix is good thanks, but i'd have
> preferred it if you'd have spoken to me first.)

 It happened during a bug day, and as it was trivial (no objections raised here
in the bug), I felt so free to change the ebuild.  Normally I send out a
notification afterwards, but in this case you reveived the mail about it
through Bugzilla.