The following reply was made to PR pkg/32202; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Roland Illig <rillig@NetBSD.org>
To: gnats-bugs@netbsd.org
Cc: kristerw@netbsd.org
Subject: Re: pkg/32202
Date: Sun, 04 Dec 2005 10:04:20 +0100

 Krister Walfridsson wrote:
 > The following reply was made to PR pkg/32202; it has been noted by GNATS.
 > 
 > From: Krister Walfridsson <cato@df.lth.se>
 > To: gnats-bugs@netbsd.org
 > Cc: 
 > Subject: Re: pkg/32202
 > Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2005 22:04:50 +0100 (CET)
 > 
 >  On Sat, 3 Dec 2005 joerg@britannica.bec.de wrote:
 >  
 >  > On Sat, Dec 03, 2005 at 08:15:07PM +0000, Krister Walfridsson wrote:
 >  > >  Hmm.  mk/bulk/printdepends is not completely happy:
 >  >
 >  > That's a different problem. Those packages don't have a working
 >  > "show-depends-dirs", since e.g. PKG_FAIL or so is set. The message is a
 >  > bit misleading, but the behaviour correct.
 >  
 >  Well, this behavior is fallout of fixing the PR.
 >  
 >  And I claim it is a bug -- the mk/bulk/printdepends should not
 >  write any errors unless the errors are real problems that
 >  should be fixed.  I have no problem with "show-depends-dirs"
 >  writing errors in this case, but then "printdepends" need to
 >  suppress the errors, or use some other mechanism.
 
 There definitely _is_ a bug. The question is where we define it to be. 
 The problem here is that the PKG_FAIL_REASON is used for all styles of 
 error reporting, some of which are relevant to the show-depends-dirs 
 target (missing dependencies), and some are not (wrong TeTeX package).
 
 Roland