1 |
On 01/09/2015 13:03, covici@××××××××××.com wrote: |
2 |
> Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@×××××.com> wrote: |
3 |
> |
4 |
>> On 01/09/2015 02:12, covici@××××××××××.com wrote: |
5 |
>>> Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@×××××.com> wrote: |
6 |
>>> |
7 |
>>>> On 31/08/2015 18:54, covici@××××××××××.com wrote: |
8 |
>>>>>> The words make sense, the meaning doesn't :-) |
9 |
>>>>>>> |
10 |
>>>>>>> It looks like fail2ban wants systemd without python support, but the |
11 |
>>>>>>> true reason is still hidden. The fail2ban ebuild has this: |
12 |
>>>>>>> |
13 |
>>>>>>> RDEPEND=" |
14 |
>>>>>>> ... |
15 |
>>>>>>> systemd? ( $(python_gen_cond_dep '|| ( |
16 |
>>>>>>> dev-python/python-systemd[${PYTHON_USEDEP}] |
17 |
>>>>>>> sys-apps/systemd[python(-),${PYTHON_USEDEP}] |
18 |
>>>>>>> |
19 |
>>>>>>> |
20 |
>>>>>>> I'm thinking maybe you have a specific portage entry that's getting in |
21 |
>>>>>>> the way. What are your results for: |
22 |
>>>>>>> |
23 |
>>>>>>> emerge --info |
24 |
>>>>>>> grep -r python /etc/portage |
25 |
>>>>>>> grep -r systemd /etc/portage |
26 |
>>>>> Just to let you know, most of the python entries were mandated by |
27 |
>>>>> portage, certainly the systemd one. |
28 |
>>>> |
29 |
>>>> |
30 |
>>>> I'm having a hard time figuring out what is making portage do this. |
31 |
>>>> I also figure you're OK with a downgraded systemd meanwhile, but just |
32 |
>>>> for kicks, lets test my theory: If you run this, does portage offer to |
33 |
>>>> upgrade systemd? |
34 |
>>>> |
35 |
>>>> |
36 |
>>>> USE="-python" emerge -pv systemd |
37 |
>>> |
38 |
>>> Well, here is what I got |
39 |
>>> [ebuild U ] sys-apps/systemd-225:0/2::gentoo [219_p112:0/2::gentoo] |
40 |
>>> USE="acl kdbus* kmod lz4 pam policykit seccomp ssl -apparmor -audit |
41 |
>>> -cryptsetup -curl -elfutils -gcrypt -gnuefi% -http -idn -importd -lzma |
42 |
>>> -nat -qrcode (-selinux) -sysv-utils {-test} -vanilla -xkb (-doc%*) |
43 |
>>> (-gudev%) (-introspection%*) (-python%*) |
44 |
>>> (-terminal%)" ABI_X86="32 (64) (-x32)" |
45 |
>>> PYTHON_SINGLE_TARGET="(-python2_7%*) (-python3_3%) (-python3_4%)" |
46 |
>>> PYTHON_TARGETS="(-python2_7%*) (-python3_3%) (-python3_4%*)" 3,788 KiB |
47 |
>>> |
48 |
>>> Total: 1 package (1 upgrade), Size of downloads: 3,788 KiB |
49 |
>>> |
50 |
>>> !!! Multiple package instances within a single package slot have been |
51 |
>>> pulled |
52 |
>>> !!! into the dependency graph, resulting in a slot conflict: |
53 |
>>> |
54 |
>>> sys-apps/systemd:0 |
55 |
>>> |
56 |
>>> (sys-apps/systemd-225:0/2::gentoo, ebuild scheduled for merge) pulled |
57 |
>>> in by |
58 |
>>> sys-apps/systemd (Argument) |
59 |
>>> |
60 |
>>> (sys-apps/systemd-219_p112:0/2::gentoo, installed) pulled in by |
61 |
>>> 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(+)?] |
62 |
>>> required by (net-analyzer/fail2ban-0.9.3:0/0::gentoo, installed) |
63 |
>> |
64 |
>> |
65 |
>> |
66 |
>> Got it, finally :-) |
67 |
>> |
68 |
>> fail2ban wants sys-apps/systemd[python(-)], and systemd-219_p112 is the |
69 |
>> highest version with an explicit python USE flag. All later versions do |
70 |
>> not have the flag at all. |
71 |
>> |
72 |
>> Your choices are either to have fail2ban fixed to deal with recent |
73 |
>> systemd USE, and tolerate the systemd downgrade meanwhile; or to replace |
74 |
>> fail2ban with something equivalent |
75 |
> |
76 |
> I do need fail2ban, so should I file a bug against it? |
77 |
|
78 |
|
79 |
Yes, definitely. There's a problem with fail2ban, or with portage's |
80 |
resolver, or with our ability to read portage operators, I'm not sure |
81 |
which :-) |
82 |
|
83 |
The package maintainer is in a position to help out here. |
84 |
|
85 |
|
86 |
-- |
87 |
Alan McKinnon |
88 |
alan.mckinnon@×××××.com |