1 |
Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@×××××.com> wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
> On 01/09/2015 02:12, covici@××××××××××.com wrote: |
4 |
> > Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@×××××.com> wrote: |
5 |
> > |
6 |
> >> On 31/08/2015 18:54, covici@××××××××××.com wrote: |
7 |
> >>>> The words make sense, the meaning doesn't :-) |
8 |
> >>>>> |
9 |
> >>>>> It looks like fail2ban wants systemd without python support, but the |
10 |
> >>>>> true reason is still hidden. The fail2ban ebuild has this: |
11 |
> >>>>> |
12 |
> >>>>> RDEPEND=" |
13 |
> >>>>> ... |
14 |
> >>>>> systemd? ( $(python_gen_cond_dep '|| ( |
15 |
> >>>>> dev-python/python-systemd[${PYTHON_USEDEP}] |
16 |
> >>>>> sys-apps/systemd[python(-),${PYTHON_USEDEP}] |
17 |
> >>>>> |
18 |
> >>>>> |
19 |
> >>>>> I'm thinking maybe you have a specific portage entry that's getting in |
20 |
> >>>>> the way. What are your results for: |
21 |
> >>>>> |
22 |
> >>>>> emerge --info |
23 |
> >>>>> grep -r python /etc/portage |
24 |
> >>>>> grep -r systemd /etc/portage |
25 |
> >>> Just to let you know, most of the python entries were mandated by |
26 |
> >>> portage, certainly the systemd one. |
27 |
> >> |
28 |
> >> |
29 |
> >> I'm having a hard time figuring out what is making portage do this. |
30 |
> >> I also figure you're OK with a downgraded systemd meanwhile, but just |
31 |
> >> for kicks, lets test my theory: If you run this, does portage offer to |
32 |
> >> upgrade systemd? |
33 |
> >> |
34 |
> >> |
35 |
> >> USE="-python" emerge -pv systemd |
36 |
> > |
37 |
> > Well, here is what I got |
38 |
> > [ebuild U ] sys-apps/systemd-225:0/2::gentoo [219_p112:0/2::gentoo] |
39 |
> > USE="acl kdbus* kmod lz4 pam policykit seccomp ssl -apparmor -audit |
40 |
> > -cryptsetup -curl -elfutils -gcrypt -gnuefi% -http -idn -importd -lzma |
41 |
> > -nat -qrcode (-selinux) -sysv-utils {-test} -vanilla -xkb (-doc%*) |
42 |
> > (-gudev%) (-introspection%*) (-python%*) |
43 |
> > (-terminal%)" ABI_X86="32 (64) (-x32)" |
44 |
> > PYTHON_SINGLE_TARGET="(-python2_7%*) (-python3_3%) (-python3_4%)" |
45 |
> > PYTHON_TARGETS="(-python2_7%*) (-python3_3%) (-python3_4%*)" 3,788 KiB |
46 |
> > |
47 |
> > Total: 1 package (1 upgrade), Size of downloads: 3,788 KiB |
48 |
> > |
49 |
> > !!! Multiple package instances within a single package slot have been |
50 |
> > pulled |
51 |
> > !!! into the dependency graph, resulting in a slot conflict: |
52 |
> > |
53 |
> > sys-apps/systemd:0 |
54 |
> > |
55 |
> > (sys-apps/systemd-225:0/2::gentoo, ebuild scheduled for merge) pulled |
56 |
> > in by |
57 |
> > sys-apps/systemd (Argument) |
58 |
> > |
59 |
> > (sys-apps/systemd-219_p112:0/2::gentoo, installed) pulled in by |
60 |
> > sys-apps/systemd[python(-),python_targets_python2_7(-)?,python_single_target_python2_7(+)?,python_targets_python3_3(-)?,python_single_target_python3_3(+)?,python_targets_python3_4(-)?,python_single_target_python3_4(+)?] |
61 |
> > required by (net-analyzer/fail2ban-0.9.3:0/0::gentoo, installed) |
62 |
> |
63 |
> |
64 |
> |
65 |
> Got it, finally :-) |
66 |
> |
67 |
> fail2ban wants sys-apps/systemd[python(-)], and systemd-219_p112 is the |
68 |
> highest version with an explicit python USE flag. All later versions do |
69 |
> not have the flag at all. |
70 |
> |
71 |
> Your choices are either to have fail2ban fixed to deal with recent |
72 |
> systemd USE, and tolerate the systemd downgrade meanwhile; or to replace |
73 |
> fail2ban with something equivalent |
74 |
|
75 |
I do need fail2ban, so should I file a bug against it? |
76 |
|
77 |
|
78 |
-- |
79 |
Your life is like a penny. You're going to lose it. The question is: |
80 |
How do |
81 |
you spend it? |
82 |
|
83 |
John Covici |
84 |
covici@××××××××××.com |