On 11 April 2018 at 16:11,  <m...@tdiehl.org> wrote:
> On 11 Apr 2018 09:48 Fabian Arrotin wrote:
>> On 11/04/18 13:58, James Hogarth wrote:
>> > For those not aware ansible has been deprecated in RHEL7 from the extras
>> > repository.
>> > > In the RHEL specific world it's now in an optional "product"
>> > > (basically an
>> > optional subscription) that is part of any RHEL subscription, but it's
>> > opt
>> > in.
>> > > As a result ansible is back in the EPEL7 repository for 2.5.0+ ,
>> > > having
>> > been removed for  ansible 2.4.2 when it got introduced to the  RHEL
>> > extras
>> > repo.
>> > > I have no idea what, if anything, the CentOS team will do with the
>> > > ansible
>> > in the CentOS7 extras repository.
>> That's a good question, as "orphaning" it would be an issue for all
>> people now getting it directly from Extras, if they don't have epel
>> added (also "opt-in")
>> AFAICS, nothing is pushed to git.centos.org anymore for it :
>> https://git.centos.org/summary/rpms!ansible.git
>> So I guess it would be a question for the centos-devel list :
>> - either we orphan it (and the other pkgs required for it) from extras
>> - or we try to build those and continue to provide ansible
> Does it really matter which repo it comes from?
> I would expect the users of ansible to be smart enough to get it from epel
> or extras. As long as we know how to get it I do not see this as a big deal.
> It seems that since it is already being built for EPEL, that would be the
> path
> of least resistance for the Centos devs.
> Just my $.02
> Regards,

Copying from the EPEL development list as this is likely to be helpful
to many here, and well be a relief as well:

On 11 April 2018 at 20:32, Dylan Silva <thau...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I am very afraid I am jumping into a lion's den here... However, I am going 
> to try to alleviate some concerns.
> Our move from EPEL to Extras was actually to solve for the needs of RHEL and 
> the RHEL System Roles.  We needed to be in a channel that customers could 
> consume from that wasn't EPEL.
> Upon our move to Extras, we immediately identified a problem.  That problem 
> was, we Ansible, were not able to release as often as we preferred/needed for 
> our customers.  We also were facing confusion about what did support mean 
> once a package was inside of Extras.
> As such, we made the decision to two things.
> 1. Deprecate Ansible from Extras.
> 2. Provide access to Ansible via a Red Hat trusted delivery mechanism.
> For #2, EPEL obviously is not the route to take for some customers.  So, we 
> decided that all RHEL customers would have full access to the Subscription 
> channel.  We also specified that if a customer wanted support, they would 
> still need to purchase a subscription.
> We had a very delicate situation here.  There were a lot of check and 
> balances that had to be met before we could make any announcement. So that's 
> why it has been "a little quiet."
> The security advisory link posted above, and this link 
> <https://access.redhat.com/articles/3359651> attempt to cover the bulk of the 
> possible questions that may arise.
> That being said, we still aim to provide our customers/users the ability to 
> obtain Ansible any way they choose.  So if the user does not want to use the 
> channel or cannot use it for any reason, they still have the ability to pull 
> from EPEL or our releases.ansible.com pages. As far as we're concerned, it is 
> functionally the same application no matter where it comes from.. If a 
> customer has a subscription; they will be supported.
> I, the Product Manager of Ansible Engine, am staying on top of these concerns 
> as they come by.  So far, no huge customer/user concerns have caused any 
> alarm.  Most users have embraced the moves, and have continued to automate.

CentOS mailing list

Reply via email to