Created attachment 273293 [details] Build log Hello there! You're getting this bug because the package in Summary failed to build in my tinderbox using the gold link editor from binutils. Before closing the bug as INVALID let me explain why this is still important! The gold link editor does not support underlinking of shared objects, which is something I have described in my blog post: http://blog.flameeyes.eu/2010/11/26/it-s-not-all-gold-that-shines-why-underlinking-is-a-bad-thing Even the basic link editor (ld.bfd) has an option to support this but it is a heck to enable and get passed, so linking with gold is simply quicker. Fixing underlinking provides optimized --as-needed builds (because the "softer" version no longer need to recover libraries that are underlinked), so it is a Good Thing To Do. Thank you very much for the attention!
+*netpbm-10.51.00-r2 (12 Oct 2011) + + 12 Oct 2011; Justin Lecher <jlec@gentoo.org> +netpbm-10.51.00-r2.ebuild, + +files/netpbm-10.51.00-underlinking.patch, metadata.xml: + Fix underlinking, #367405 +
did you send that upstream ?
(In reply to comment #2) > did you send that upstream ? that and, why was this package revision bumped (causing unnecessary rebuild for people who had perfectly working netpbm as is) ?
(In reply to comment #3) > (In reply to comment #2) > > did you send that upstream ? Yes I did. > > that and, why was this package revision bumped (causing unnecessary rebuild for > people who had perfectly working netpbm as is) ? I never touch other peoples package and fiddle in their stuff without bumping. This makes removing my changes much straighter. Did your netpbm got broken afterwards?