From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0825A1383D3 for ; Tue, 1 Sep 2015 11:03:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 5722B1428A; Tue, 1 Sep 2015 11:03:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail0131.smtp25.com (mail0131.smtp25.com [75.126.84.131]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4D06314217 for ; Tue, 1 Sep 2015 11:03:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ccs.covici.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ccs.covici.com (8.14.9/8.14.8) with ESMTP id t81B3aUJ006641 for ; Tue, 1 Sep 2015 07:03:36 -0400 From: covici@ccs.covici.com To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] a few blockers I can't figure out In-reply-to: <55E57600.8050409@gmail.com> References: <14864.1440994748@ccs.covici.com> <55E42037.1060402@gmail.com> <32639.1441018993@ccs.covici.com> <55E43610.7000709@gmail.com> <24901.1441021764@ccs.covici.com> <55E44B22.9090806@gmail.com> <29989.1441029822@ccs.covici.com> <55E46A64.5030701@gmail.com> <5230.1441040087@ccs.covici.com> <55E4D2A2.5050500@gmail.com> <16396.1441066373@ccs.covici.com> <55E57600.8050409@gmail.com> Comments: In-reply-to Alan McKinnon message dated "Tue, 01 Sep 2015 11:55:12 +0200." X-Mailer: MH-E 8.5; nmh 1.6; GNU Emacs 23.4.1 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <6639.1441105416.1@ccs.covici.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Tue, 01 Sep 2015 07:03:36 -0400 Message-ID: <6640.1441105416@ccs.covici.com> X-SpamH-OriginatingIP: 70.109.53.110 X-SpamH-Filter: d-out-001.smtp25.com-t81B3bgY003643 X-Archives-Salt: 0bc002d6-b25d-4136-a417-556d9ac4d4f0 X-Archives-Hash: 255bb4d48f7985427eb660101f5608be Alan McKinnon wrote: > On 01/09/2015 02:12, covici@ccs.covici.com wrote: > > Alan McKinnon wrote: > > = > >> On 31/08/2015 18:54, covici@ccs.covici.com wrote: > >>>> The words make sense, the meaning doesn't :-) > >>>>> > >>>>> It looks like fail2ban wants systemd without python support, but t= he > >>>>> true reason is still hidden. The fail2ban ebuild has this: > >>>>> > >>>>> RDEPEND=3D" > >>>>> ... > >>>>> systemd? ( $(python_gen_cond_dep '|| ( > >>>>> dev-python/python-systemd[${PYTHON_USEDEP}] > >>>>> sys-apps/systemd[python(-),${PYTHON_USEDEP}] > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> I'm thinking maybe you have a specific portage entry that's gettin= g in > >>>>> the way. What are your results for: > >>>>> > >>>>> emerge --info > >>>>> grep -r python /etc/portage > >>>>> grep -r systemd /etc/portage > >>> Just to let you know, most of the python entries were mandated by > >>> portage, certainly the systemd one. > >> > >> > >> I'm having a hard time figuring out what is making portage do this. > >> I also figure you're OK with a downgraded systemd meanwhile, but just > >> for kicks, lets test my theory: If you run this, does portage offer t= o > >> upgrade systemd? > >> > >> > >> USE=3D"-python" emerge -pv systemd > > = > > Well, here is what I got > > [ebuild U ] sys-apps/systemd-225:0/2::gentoo [219_p112:0/2::gento= o] > > USE=3D"acl kdbus* kmod lz4 pam policykit seccomp ssl -apparmor -audit > > -cryptsetup -curl -elfutils -gcrypt -gnuefi% -http -idn -importd -lzma > > -nat -qrcode (-selinux) -sysv-utils {-test} -vanilla -xkb (-doc%*) > > (-gudev%) (-introspection%*) (-python%*) > > (-terminal%)" ABI_X86=3D"32 (64) (-x32)" > > PYTHON_SINGLE_TARGET=3D"(-python2_7%*) (-python3_3%) (-python3_4%)" > > PYTHON_TARGETS=3D"(-python2_7%*) (-python3_3%) (-python3_4%*)" 3,788 K= iB > > = > > Total: 1 package (1 upgrade), Size of downloads: 3,788 KiB > > = > > !!! Multiple package instances within a single package slot have been > > pulled > > !!! into the dependency graph, resulting in a slot conflict: > > = > > sys-apps/systemd:0 > > = > > (sys-apps/systemd-225:0/2::gentoo, ebuild scheduled for merge) pulle= d > > in by > > sys-apps/systemd (Argument) > > = > > (sys-apps/systemd-219_p112:0/2::gentoo, installed) pulled in by > > sys-apps/systemd[python(-),python_targets_python2_7(-)?,python_sin= gle_target_python2_7(+)?,python_targets_python3_3(-)?,python_single_target= _python3_3(+)?,python_targets_python3_4(-)?,python_single_target_python3_4= (+)?] > > required by (net-analyzer/fail2ban-0.9.3:0/0::gentoo, installed) > = > = > = > Got it, finally :-) > = > fail2ban wants sys-apps/systemd[python(-)], and systemd-219_p112 is the > highest version with an explicit python USE flag. All later versions do > not have the flag at all. > = > Your choices are either to have fail2ban fixed to deal with recent > systemd USE, and tolerate the systemd downgrade meanwhile; or to replace > fail2ban with something equivalent I do need fail2ban, so should I file a bug against it? -- = Your life is like a penny. You're going to lose it. The question is: How do you spend it? John Covici covici@ccs.covici.com