Created attachment 459392 [details, diff] a trivial patch In file bin/Makefile.am $(MATH_LIB) should be added to AM_LDFLAGS explicitly like in the master version /usr/lib/gcc/i686-pc-linux-gnu/4.9.4/../../../../i686-pc-linux-gnu/bin/ld: gegl-path-smooth.o: undefined reference to symbol 'sqrt@@GLIBC_2.0'
Thanks for the report! commit 80ba07d5250ba5ddd08568d10934023bbb558016 Author: Sebastian Pipping <sping@g.o> Date: Mon Jan 9 21:58:19 2017 +0100 media-libs/gegl: Fix linking (bug #605216) Package-Manager: Portage-2.3.3, Repoman-2.3.1 .../gegl/files/gegl-0.2.0-underlinking.patch | 38 ++++++++++++++++++++++ media-libs/gegl/gegl-0.2.0-r2.ebuild | 5 ++- 2 files changed, 42 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) https://github.com/gentoo/gentoo/commit/80ba07d5250ba5ddd08568d10934023bbb558016
Hi everybody, I stumbled over the same issue in the tools directory when compiling version 0.2.0-r2 on aarch64: +++++ /usr/lib/gcc/aarch64-unknown-linux-gnu/4.9.4/../../../../aarch64-unknown-linux-gnu/bin/ld: img_cmp.o: undefined reference to symbol 'sqrt@@GLIBC_2.17' /lib64/libm.so.6: error adding symbols: DSO missing from command line collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status make[2]: *** [Makefile:475: img_cmp] Error 1 make[2]: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs.... make[2]: Leaving directory '/mnt/soft/gentoo/fs/arm64/var/tmp/portage/media-libs/gegl-0.2.0-r2/work/gegl-0.2.0/tools' make[1]: *** [Makefile:544: all-recursive] Error 1 make[1]: Leaving directory '/mnt/soft/gentoo/fs/arm64/var/tmp/portage/media-libs/gegl-0.2.0-r2/work/gegl-0.2.0' make: *** [Makefile:450: all] Error 2 +++++ I could fix the issue with this patch: +++++ --- gegl-0.2.0/tools/Makefile.am 2012-03-24 20:29:49.000000000 +0100 +++ gegl-0.2.0.new/tools/Makefile.am 2017-04-13 11:07:13.217454776 +0200 @@ -22,7 +22,7 @@ AM_LDFLAGS = \ $(top_builddir)/gegl/libgegl-$(GEGL_API_VERSION).la \ - $(DEP_LIBS) $(BABL_LIBS) + $(DEP_LIBS) $(BABL_LIBS) $(MATH_LIB) noinst_PROGRAMS = introspect operation_reference img_cmp +++++ My question is if we should re-open this bug or should I file a new one?
(In reply to Thomas Jürges from comment #2) > I stumbled over the same issue in the tools directory when compiling version > 0.2.0-r2 on aarch64: Sorry, I should have said ARM64 instead of aarch64.