| 1 |
Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> On 31/08/2015 18:54, covici@××××××××××.com wrote: |
| 4 |
> >> The words make sense, the meaning doesn't :-) |
| 5 |
> >> > |
| 6 |
> >> > It looks like fail2ban wants systemd without python support, but the |
| 7 |
> >> > true reason is still hidden. The fail2ban ebuild has this: |
| 8 |
> >> > |
| 9 |
> >> > RDEPEND=" |
| 10 |
> >> > ... |
| 11 |
> >> > systemd? ( $(python_gen_cond_dep '|| ( |
| 12 |
> >> > dev-python/python-systemd[${PYTHON_USEDEP}] |
| 13 |
> >> > sys-apps/systemd[python(-),${PYTHON_USEDEP}] |
| 14 |
> >> > |
| 15 |
> >> > |
| 16 |
> >> > I'm thinking maybe you have a specific portage entry that's getting in |
| 17 |
> >> > the way. What are your results for: |
| 18 |
> >> > |
| 19 |
> >> > emerge --info |
| 20 |
> >> > grep -r python /etc/portage |
| 21 |
> >> > grep -r systemd /etc/portage |
| 22 |
> > Just to let you know, most of the python entries were mandated by |
| 23 |
> > portage, certainly the systemd one. |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> I'm having a hard time figuring out what is making portage do this. |
| 27 |
> I also figure you're OK with a downgraded systemd meanwhile, but just |
| 28 |
> for kicks, lets test my theory: If you run this, does portage offer to |
| 29 |
> upgrade systemd? |
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
> USE="-python" emerge -pv systemd |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
Well, here is what I got |
| 35 |
[ebuild U ] sys-apps/systemd-225:0/2::gentoo [219_p112:0/2::gentoo] |
| 36 |
USE="acl kdbus* kmod lz4 pam policykit seccomp ssl -apparmor -audit |
| 37 |
-cryptsetup -curl -elfutils -gcrypt -gnuefi% -http -idn -importd -lzma |
| 38 |
-nat -qrcode (-selinux) -sysv-utils {-test} -vanilla -xkb (-doc%*) |
| 39 |
(-gudev%) (-introspection%*) (-python%*) |
| 40 |
(-terminal%)" ABI_X86="32 (64) (-x32)" |
| 41 |
PYTHON_SINGLE_TARGET="(-python2_7%*) (-python3_3%) (-python3_4%)" |
| 42 |
PYTHON_TARGETS="(-python2_7%*) (-python3_3%) (-python3_4%*)" 3,788 KiB |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
Total: 1 package (1 upgrade), Size of downloads: 3,788 KiB |
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
!!! Multiple package instances within a single package slot have been |
| 47 |
pulled |
| 48 |
!!! into the dependency graph, resulting in a slot conflict: |
| 49 |
|
| 50 |
sys-apps/systemd:0 |
| 51 |
|
| 52 |
(sys-apps/systemd-225:0/2::gentoo, ebuild scheduled for merge) pulled |
| 53 |
in by |
| 54 |
sys-apps/systemd (Argument) |
| 55 |
|
| 56 |
(sys-apps/systemd-219_p112:0/2::gentoo, installed) pulled in by |
| 57 |
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(+)?] |
| 58 |
required by (net-analyzer/fail2ban-0.9.3:0/0::gentoo, installed) |
| 59 |
|
| 60 |
|
| 61 |
|
| 62 |
|
| 63 |
It may be possible to solve this problem by using package.mask to |
| 64 |
prevent one of those packages from being selected. However, it is also |
| 65 |
possible that conflicting dependencies exist such that they are |
| 66 |
impossible to satisfy simultaneously. If such a conflict exists in |
| 67 |
the dependencies of two different packages, then those packages can |
| 68 |
not be installed simultaneously. You may want to try a larger value of |
| 69 |
the --backtrack option, such as --backtrack=30, in order to see if |
| 70 |
that will solve this conflict automatically. |
| 71 |
|
| 72 |
For more information, see MASKED PACKAGES section in the emerge man |
| 73 |
page or refer to the Gentoo Handbook. |
| 74 |
|
| 75 |
|
| 76 |
-- |
| 77 |
Your life is like a penny. You're going to lose it. The question is: |
| 78 |
How do |
| 79 |
you spend it? |
| 80 |
|
| 81 |
John Covici |
| 82 |
covici@××××××××××.com |
Archives