Alan McKinnon <alan.mckin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 01/09/2015 02:12, cov...@ccs.covici.com wrote:
> > Alan McKinnon <alan.mckin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 31/08/2015 18:54, cov...@ccs.covici.com wrote:
> >>>> The words make sense, the meaning doesn't :-)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It looks like fail2ban wants systemd without python support, but the
> >>>>> true reason is still hidden. The fail2ban ebuild has this:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> RDEPEND="
> >>>>> ...
> >>>>> 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 getting 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 to
> >> upgrade systemd?
> >>
> >>
> >> USE="-python" emerge -pv systemd
> >
> > Well, here is what I got
> > [ebuild U ] sys-apps/systemd-225:0/2::gentoo [219_p112:0/2::gentoo]
> > USE="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="32 (64) (-x32)"
> > PYTHON_SINGLE_TARGET="(-python2_7%*) (-python3_3%) (-python3_4%)"
> > PYTHON_TARGETS="(-python2_7%*) (-python3_3%) (-python3_4%*)" 3,788 KiB
> >
> > 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) pulled
> > 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_single_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
cov...@ccs.covici.com
