From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:38824)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <berrange@redhat.com>) id 1b7fpA-0000Cd-33
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 31 May 2016 05:18:59 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <berrange@redhat.com>) id 1b7fp5-00067D-BB
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 31 May 2016 05:18:55 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:38926)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <berrange@redhat.com>) id 1b7fp5-000676-5G
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 31 May 2016 05:18:51 -0400
Date: Tue, 31 May 2016 10:18:45 +0100
From: "Daniel P. Berrange" <berrange@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <20160531091845.GG21628@redhat.com>
Reply-To: "Daniel P. Berrange" <berrange@redhat.com>
References: <0322B7E6-88DD-436E-884A-F0F78B8209BE@gmail.com>
	<573F9327.9000808@redhat.com>
	<CAFEAcA_XGyq5MSuhhx4d241RbqL2+c_G6f3pQbVQHArXfarFzw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAFEAcA_XGyq5MSuhhx4d241RbqL2+c_G6f3pQbVQHArXfarFzw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] undefined symbol _nettle_cast5_set_key
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>
Cc: Eric Blake <eblake@redhat.com>, Programmingkid <programmingkidx@gmail.com>, qemu-devel qemu-devel <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>

On Sat, May 21, 2016 at 02:14:07PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 20 May 2016 at 23:43, Eric Blake <eblake@redhat.com> wrote:
> > What version of nettle are you compiling against? Obviously it's an
> > older version, but is it one that we need to work around at configure
> > time, or one that you should just update locally?
> 
> I think in general if we can't build against a version of
> a library dependency we should always disable the relevant
> optional feature at compile time -- this just makes life easier
> for users, since updating a library (or removing it) isn't always
> possible.

Absolutely, I'll be looking into this issue now I'm back from vacation.

Regards,
Daniel
-- 
|: http://berrange.com      -o-    http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :|
|: http://libvirt.org              -o-             http://virt-manager.org :|
|: http://autobuild.org       -o-         http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|
|: http://entangle-photo.org       -o-       http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :|