Both binutils and binutils-libs install supposedly the same library. The former into isolated directory, the latter into /usr/lib64. Normally: $ ldd /usr/bin/ld linux-vdso.so.1 (0x00007fffb3dc4000) libbfd-2.27.so => /usr/lib64/binutils/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/2.27/libbfd-2.27.so (0x00007f86fe7d3000) libdl.so.2 => /lib64/libdl.so.2 (0x00007f86fe5cf000) libc.so.6 => /lib64/libc.so.6 (0x00007f86fe234000) libz.so.1 => /lib64/libz.so.1 (0x00007f86ff387000) /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 (0x00007f86ff1cd000) However, if an application sets LD_LIBRARY_PATH=/usr/lib64 for some reason: $ LD_LIBRARY_PATH=/usr/lib64 ldd /usr/bin/ld linux-vdso.so.1 (0x00007ffda070a000) libbfd-2.27.so => /usr/lib64/libbfd-2.27.so (0x00007f7af4c33000) libdl.so.2 => /lib64/libdl.so.2 (0x00007f7af4a2f000) libc.so.6 => /lib64/libc.so.6 (0x00007f7af4694000) libz.so.1 => /lib64/libz.so.1 (0x00007f7af5126000) /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 (0x00007f7af4f6c000) While this normally should be harmless (i.e. not worth 'fixing'), for some reason the libbfd-2.27.so is incompatible with ld: $ LD_LIBRARY_PATH=/usr/lib64 ld ld: symbol lookup error: ld: undefined symbol: rx_additional_link_map_text I think it's a very bad idea to install two incompatible libraries using the same name, especially that one of them lands in standard library search path.
it's incompatible when you build them using incompatible settings. like USE=multitarget. messing with settings like forcing LD_LIBRARY_PATH=/usr/lib64 and then complaining when apps start using the libs from there sounds like a case of PEBKAC.
Then you should enforce that on ebuild level instead of expecting people to guess that two packages are building the same library twice for no good reason and that this could break toolchain.
(In reply to Michał Górny from comment #2) i really have no idea what you're talking about. please quote real examples of problems instead of talking in vague nonsense. you've also provided no justification for your "no good reason" claim, and you making that statement is clear that you haven't bothered to research any of the history behind these packages/libs. not to mention this bug follows your normal trend of: (1) make vague statements (2) get upset when your vague statements are rejected (3) whine & cc qa@gentoo.org please fix your style. it's not conducive to getting any useful work done and simply serves to annoy people and waste time.
