=app-backup/bacula-5.0.3 does not compile when the storage daemon has to be built (-bacula-clientonly -bacula-nodir -bacula-nosd). The build process fails to link the storage daemon, apparently due to undefined references to OpenSSL routines in libbac. Reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce: 1. Try to emerge =app-backup/bacula-5.0.3 (or upgrade from 5.0.2-r2 or an earlier version). Actual Results: Bacula fails to build successfully (at least on x86 and sparc). See attachments for details. Expected Results: The build process should have completed without error. See attachments for details.
Created attachment 244121 [details] emerge --info =app-backup/bacula-5.0.3 on sparc
Created attachment 244123 [details] emerge -pqv =app-backup/bacula-5.0.3 on sparc
Created attachment 244125 [details] build.log for =app-backup/bacula-5.0.3 on sparc
Created attachment 244127 [details] emerge --info =app-backup/bacula-5.0.3 on x86
Created attachment 244129 [details] emerge -pqv =app-backup/bacula-5.0.3 on x86
Created attachment 244131 [details] build.log for =app-backup/bacula-5.0.3 on x86
The same issue arise on a x86_64 system. I attached my emerge --info and build log.
Created attachment 244203 [details] build.log for x86_64
Created attachment 244205 [details] My emerge --info for 86_64 machine
Thanks for reporting. I wonder why I get no problem here in stable chroot, but can reproduce it. Same problem as in bug #310087. Fixed. +*bacula-5.0.3-r1 (23 Aug 2010) + + 23 Aug 2010; Thomas Beierlein <tomjbe@gentoo.org> +bacula-5.0.3-r1.ebuild, + +files/5.0.3/bacula-5.0.3-as-needed.patch: + Fix as-needed problem, bug #334029 +
Created attachment 244239 [details, diff] ebuild patch The patches for 5.0.2 included an --as-needed patch while 5.0.3 didn't. I made one based on what the 5.0.2 patch did, and it compiles and runs. I don't know Makefile.in syntax too well, so the patch may have problems or do too much.
Created attachment 244243 [details, diff] analog to 5.0.2's patch
5.0.3-r1 hasn't made it yet into the sparc and x86_64 trees, as far as I can see. But I can confirm that it works just fine on x86.