From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Roel Janssen <roel@gnu.org>
Subject: bug#31190: Ansible doesn't build
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2018 22:16:11 +0200
Message-ID: <87vacnc5pw.fsf@gnu.org>
References: <87h8oayxum.fsf@lassieur.org>
	<CAPsKtfKu=BcfB20kH_P2JHbFh=_YC3F=ZMSX6NytRsjhKSOyvw@mail.gmail.com>
	<87k1t5blhp.fsf@fastmail.com>
	<CAPsKtfL0zc8vv+Xf+gAbN9H-EjKRZJ16CqLhoHZ8GxvA-xLbAA@mail.gmail.com>
	<87o9if9o8t.fsf@fastmail.com> <87d0yvnj0e.fsf@lassieur.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Return-path: <bug-guix-bounces+gcggb-bug-guix=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:43133)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <Debian-debbugs@debbugs.gnu.org>) id 1f9FzO-0001eh-4a
	for bug-guix@gnu.org; Thu, 19 Apr 2018 16:17:07 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <Debian-debbugs@debbugs.gnu.org>) id 1f9FzK-0000Dy-Qp
	for bug-guix@gnu.org; Thu, 19 Apr 2018 16:17:06 -0400
Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:53597)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16)
	(Exim 4.71) (envelope-from <Debian-debbugs@debbugs.gnu.org>)
	id 1f9FzK-0000DM-Mu
	for bug-guix@gnu.org; Thu, 19 Apr 2018 16:17:02 -0400
Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2)
	(envelope-from <Debian-debbugs@debbugs.gnu.org>) id 1f9FzK-0003U9-Gq
	for bug-guix@gnu.org; Thu, 19 Apr 2018 16:17:02 -0400
Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-Message-ID: <handler.31190.B31190.152416899013353@debbugs.gnu.org>
In-reply-to: <87d0yvnj0e.fsf@lassieur.org>
List-Id: Bug reports for GNU Guix <bug-guix.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/bug-guix>,
	<mailto:bug-guix-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-guix/>
List-Post: <mailto:bug-guix@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bug-guix-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-guix>,
	<mailto:bug-guix-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: bug-guix-bounces+gcggb-bug-guix=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
Sender: "bug-Guix" <bug-guix-bounces+gcggb-bug-guix=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
To: =?UTF-8?Q?Cl=C3=A9ment?= Lassieur <clement@lassieur.org>
Cc: 31190@debbugs.gnu.org, Jelle Licht <jlicht@fsfe.org>


Clément Lassieur <clement@lassieur.org> writes:

> For the record, patches about it have been sent to guix-patches as well:
> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-patches/2018-04/msg00332.html.

Right. I didn't see these.  You can ignore mine then.


>
> Marius Bakke <mbakke@fastmail.com> writes:
>
>> Jelle Licht <jlicht@fsfe.org> writes:
>>
>>> 2018-04-17 22:56 GMT+02:00 Marius Bakke <mbakke@fastmail.com>:
>>>
>>>> Jelle Licht <jlicht@fsfe.org> writes:
>>>>
>>>> > From f770998d0f0b56180e0c9a12f0946a77d7ff61a5 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>>>> > From: Jelle Licht <jlicht@fsfe.org>
>>>> > Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2018 21:31:05 +0200
>>>> > Subject: [PATCH] gnu: ansible: Add missing inputs
>>>> >
>>>> > * gnu/packages/admin.scm (ansible)[native-inputs]: Add python2-bcrypt and
>>>> >   python2-pynacl.
>>>> > ---
>>>> >  gnu/packages/admin.scm | 5 ++++-
>>>> >  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>> >
>>>> > diff --git a/gnu/packages/admin.scm b/gnu/packages/admin.scm
>>>> > index aed997e5b..07401af72 100644
>>>> > --- a/gnu/packages/admin.scm
>>>> > +++ b/gnu/packages/admin.scm
>>>> > @@ -73,6 +73,7 @@
>>>> >    #:use-module (gnu packages pkg-config)
>>>> >    #:use-module (gnu packages popt)
>>>> >    #:use-module (gnu packages python)
>>>> > +  #:use-module (gnu packages password-utils)
>>>> >    #:use-module (gnu packages python-crypto)
>>>> >    #:use-module (gnu packages python-web)
>>>> >    #:use-module (gnu packages terminals)
>>>>
>>>> This introduces a circular dependency between (gnu packages admin) and
>>>> (gnu packages password-utils).  Perhaps we should move python-bcrypt to
>>>> python-crypto.scm.  Thoughts?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Makes sense to me. The `python-py-bcrypt' package is already located there
>>> so it would make sense to have similar packages in the same place.
>>
>> I went ahead and did this in 7c16af4646fac789000495064a13284691dbeb75.