On 11 April 2018 at 15:02, Nico Kadel-Garcia <nka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 4:43 AM, Alexander Bokovoy <aboko...@redhat.com> 
> wrote:
>> I'm not in Ansible engineering or product management so take this with a
>> grain of salt. My understanding is that cadence of Ansible releases and
>> its aggressiveness in API changes makes it a bit less suitable to follow
>> a traditional RHEL 7 release cadence. A separate product channel allows
>> them to update packages at own cadence.
>> I wonder how re-packaging for CentOS targets could happen with this
>> approach and probably moving it back to EPEL7 is indeed something that
>> makes more sense.
> Wouldn't a separate RHEL channel for a separate product, such as
> ansible, mean a separate channel for CentOS to avoid precisely this
> confusion? Mixing it into EPEL and having it on a separate RHEL
> channel would be *bad* for anyone who activates that separate channel.
> They'd have to filter it out of EPEL to ensure that the streams don't
> get crossed on any updates from Red Hat. I understand that this is one
> of the main reasons EPEL never carries packages that overlap with RHEL
> published software.

The official EPEL policy with regards to conflicts is here:


So technically, we aren't against policy here... it is a confusing
situation that will require careful config to get the "correct"
ansible for RHEL users though.
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Reply via email to