Re: [EPEL-devel] Re: Ansible in EL7
On Sat, Apr 14, 2018 at 2:36 PM, Neal Gompawrote: > On Sat, Apr 14, 2018 at 2:28 PM, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote: >> On Sat, Apr 14, 2018 at 2:04 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: >>> On 04/11/2018 03:13 PM, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote: It may cause pain to current RHEL ansible users, but I think that the EPEL package needs to be renamed to something like "ansible25" to avoid conflicts with the RHEL channel. >>> >>> I don't think thats practical / desirable. >>> >>> kevin >> >> I'd agree that it would have been easier to do up front. On further >> thought, say call it "ansible-rhel" to resemble the way mysql and java >> are published as distiinctly named sets of tools for different >> published releases from different authors. > > This really doesn't matter. At the end of it, the Ansible guys are > willing support Ansible on EL7 from either source, so it's a moot > point. I would be shocked if we wouldn't be keeping it relatively in > sync between the two channels anyway, since the reason for Ansible > being moved out of Extras is so it can move faster. So what? It only takes an individual consistency in one configuration to cause configurations for one feature to break ansible entirely for configurations in the even infinitesimally distinct version of ansible from the other channel. Maintaining compatibility between different channels for something with the same package only works well until a single newly named config file or library is a critical part of the software, and testing for breakages requires switching back and forth between the channels to enforce upgrades from the other channel. It requires regression testing from components from another respository you're not even using. Setting "Priorities" is useful to avoid mixing the streams, but in that case it only takes one added RPM with a name that doesn't exist in the other repository to mess up the dependencies. We saw that with "mysql-libs", in particular, and various "openssl" libraries. It was a *pain*. If you want it to move faster, and not interfere with an existing package of the identical name, it's cleaner for the sysadmins in the field to give it a different name. > Leave it as "ansible" and call it good. > > > -- > 真実はいつも一つ!/ Always, there's only one truth! > ___ > devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: [EPEL-devel] Re: Ansible in EL7
On Sat, Apr 14, 2018 at 2:28 PM, Nico Kadel-Garciawrote: > On Sat, Apr 14, 2018 at 2:04 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: >> On 04/11/2018 03:13 PM, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote: >>> It may cause pain to current RHEL ansible users, but I think that the >>> EPEL package needs to be renamed to something like "ansible25" to >>> avoid conflicts with the RHEL channel. >> >> I don't think thats practical / desirable. >> >> kevin > > I'd agree that it would have been easier to do up front. On further > thought, say call it "ansible-rhel" to resemble the way mysql and java > are published as distiinctly named sets of tools for different > published releases from different authors. This really doesn't matter. At the end of it, the Ansible guys are willing support Ansible on EL7 from either source, so it's a moot point. I would be shocked if we wouldn't be keeping it relatively in sync between the two channels anyway, since the reason for Ansible being moved out of Extras is so it can move faster. Leave it as "ansible" and call it good. -- 真実はいつも一つ!/ Always, there's only one truth! ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: [EPEL-devel] Re: Ansible in EL7
On Sat, Apr 14, 2018 at 2:04 PM, Kevin Fenziwrote: > On 04/11/2018 03:13 PM, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote: > >> EPEL is a default, critical requirement for many tools, including Chef >> and mock. Many environments running RHEL or CentOS 6 could not be used >> without EPEL's plethora of useful tools. RHEL channels can conflict >> with each other because they are enabled on an individual host, case >> by case basis. I think, from old experiences, that having *anything* >> in EPEL that overlaps with any RHEL published channel is begging for >> pain. > > There's a number of problems with EPEL saying they won't conflict with > any channel RHEL "publishes". For one, I don't know of any such list of > channels and all the rpms they contain. Additionally, that would mean > likely removing things like Chef and mock, because I suspect there's > some channels out there with those. That's why I was very careful to say "RHEL published channel". If you build your own private yum repository, well, it's your responsibility to set your policies with it. To the best of my ability to discover, chef is not in *any* published yum repository. The installation procedures for it on RHEL and CentOS are "run this script to get the right RPM" based. For mock, it's published in EPEL, not in the base RHEL channels. So it's completely consistent for it to rely on EPEL itself. >> It may cause pain to current RHEL ansible users, but I think that the >> EPEL package needs to be renamed to something like "ansible25" to >> avoid conflicts with the RHEL channel. > > I don't think thats practical / desirable. > > kevin I'd agree that it would have been easier to do up front. On further thought, say call it "ansible-rhel" to resemble the way mysql and java are published as distiinctly named sets of tools for different published releases from different authors. ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: [EPEL-devel] Re: Ansible in EL7
On 04/11/2018 03:13 PM, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote: > EPEL is a default, critical requirement for many tools, including Chef > and mock. Many environments running RHEL or CentOS 6 could not be used > without EPEL's plethora of useful tools. RHEL channels can conflict > with each other because they are enabled on an individual host, case > by case basis. I think, from old experiences, that having *anything* > in EPEL that overlaps with any RHEL published channel is begging for > pain. There's a number of problems with EPEL saying they won't conflict with any channel RHEL "publishes". For one, I don't know of any such list of channels and all the rpms they contain. Additionally, that would mean likely removing things like Chef and mock, because I suspect there's some channels out there with those. > > It may cause pain to current RHEL ansible users, but I think that the > EPEL package needs to be renamed to something like "ansible25" to > avoid conflicts with the RHEL channel. I don't think thats practical / desirable. kevin signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: [EPEL-devel] Re: Ansible in EL7
Re-adding epel-devel as I was previously not a member and received a rejection notice. Thank you, Terry Bowling Sr. Technical Product Manager - RHEL Systems Mgmt Red Hat, Inc. On Sat, Apr 14, 2018 at 6:58 AM, Terry Bowlingwrote: > Hopefully I can help provide some clarity on this topic, though there is > no easy answer to all aspects. We worked with the Ansible product team to > bundle the Ansible Engine product with the RHEL Subscription. This wording > is important to address the following which we have learned over the past > year are critically important. > >- Ansible Engine is a distinct and separate product, with *separate >channel / repo*, lifecycle, release cadence, and support policies. >- Make AE ubiquitous and easily accessible - full support comes with a > subscription >- As a separate product bundled with RHEL, it is *not* RHEL official >content and can go back into EPEL (which was very important). >- The version of Ansible previously provided in RHEL Extras is now >officially deprecated > > Changing the package name in one channel does not make all of the problems > go away. There are still Require and Provides metadata tags that would > inevitably cause future conflicts. And probably other issues that I cannot > think of at the moment. > > So if a user decides to enable the AE & EPEL channels, then I guess they > could use repo priorities to decide which version is more important to > them. If we decide for them, we will be wrong 50% of the time. > > If they are comfortable with EPEL content, I would assume they would > simply not enable the AE channel and problem is solved. At least we are > not making them choose between Extras and EPEL now. With that said, is > this still a problem? > > > Thank you, > Terry Bowling > Sr. Technical Product Manager - RHEL Systems Mgmt > Red Hat, Inc. > > > On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 6:13 PM, Nico Kadel-Garcia > wrote: > >> On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 11:07 AM, Stephen John Smoogen >> wrote: >> > On 11 April 2018 at 10:02, Nico Kadel-Garcia 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. >> > >> > It is a lot more nuanced than that. EPEL builds packages that do not >> > overlap with the following channels: >> > >> > >> > rhel-7-server-extras-rpms/ >> > rhel-7-server-optional-rpms/ >> > rhel-7-server-rpms/ >> > rhel-ha-for-rhel-7-server-rpms/ >> > rhel-server-rhscl-7-rpms/ >> > >> > These are chosen because they were the base set originally and other >> > channels which might be available can have items which conflict with >> > each other. This means that EPEL can conflict with somethings inside >> > of "RHEL" but so can things are in "RHEL". >> >> EPEL is a default, critical requirement for many tools, including Chef >> and mock. Many environments running RHEL or CentOS 6 could not be used >> without EPEL's plethora of useful tools. RHEL channels can conflict >> with each other because they are enabled on an individual host, case >> by case basis. I think, from old experiences, that having *anything* >> in EPEL that overlaps with any RHEL published channel is begging for >> pain. >> >> It may cause pain to current RHEL ansible users, but I think that the >> EPEL package needs to be renamed to something like "ansible25" to >> avoid conflicts with the RHEL channel. >> ___ >> devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org >> To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org >> > > ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: [EPEL-devel] Re: Ansible in EL7
Hopefully I can help provide some clarity on this topic, though there is no easy answer to all aspects. We worked with the Ansible product team to bundle the Ansible Engine product with the RHEL Subscription. This wording is important to address the following which we have learned over the past year are critically important. - Ansible Engine is a distinct and separate product, with *separate channel / repo*, lifecycle, release cadence, and support policies. - Make AE ubiquitous and easily accessible - full support comes with a subscription - As a separate product bundled with RHEL, it is *not* RHEL official content and can go back into EPEL (which was very important). - The version of Ansible previously provided in RHEL Extras is now officially deprecated Changing the package name in one channel does not make all of the problems go away. There are still Require and Provides metadata tags that would inevitably cause future conflicts. And probably other issues that I cannot think of at the moment. So if a user decides to enable the AE & EPEL channels, then I guess they could use repo priorities to decide which version is more important to them. If we decide for them, we will be wrong 50% of the time. If they are comfortable with EPEL content, I would assume they would simply not enable the AE channel and problem is solved. At least we are not making them choose between Extras and EPEL now. With that said, is this still a problem? Thank you, Terry Bowling Sr. Technical Product Manager - RHEL Systems Mgmt Red Hat, Inc. On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 6:13 PM, Nico Kadel-Garciawrote: > On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 11:07 AM, Stephen John Smoogen > wrote: > > On 11 April 2018 at 10:02, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote: > >> On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 4:43 AM, Alexander Bokovoy > 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. > > > > It is a lot more nuanced than that. EPEL builds packages that do not > > overlap with the following channels: > > > > > > rhel-7-server-extras-rpms/ > > rhel-7-server-optional-rpms/ > > rhel-7-server-rpms/ > > rhel-ha-for-rhel-7-server-rpms/ > > rhel-server-rhscl-7-rpms/ > > > > These are chosen because they were the base set originally and other > > channels which might be available can have items which conflict with > > each other. This means that EPEL can conflict with somethings inside > > of "RHEL" but so can things are in "RHEL". > > EPEL is a default, critical requirement for many tools, including Chef > and mock. Many environments running RHEL or CentOS 6 could not be used > without EPEL's plethora of useful tools. RHEL channels can conflict > with each other because they are enabled on an individual host, case > by case basis. I think, from old experiences, that having *anything* > in EPEL that overlaps with any RHEL published channel is begging for > pain. > > It may cause pain to current RHEL ansible users, but I think that the > EPEL package needs to be renamed to something like "ansible25" to > avoid conflicts with the RHEL channel. > ___ > devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org > ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: [EPEL-devel] Re: Ansible in EL7
On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 11:07 AM, Stephen John Smoogenwrote: > On 11 April 2018 at 10:02, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote: >> On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 4:43 AM, Alexander Bokovoy >> 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. > > It is a lot more nuanced than that. EPEL builds packages that do not > overlap with the following channels: > > > rhel-7-server-extras-rpms/ > rhel-7-server-optional-rpms/ > rhel-7-server-rpms/ > rhel-ha-for-rhel-7-server-rpms/ > rhel-server-rhscl-7-rpms/ > > These are chosen because they were the base set originally and other > channels which might be available can have items which conflict with > each other. This means that EPEL can conflict with somethings inside > of "RHEL" but so can things are in "RHEL". EPEL is a default, critical requirement for many tools, including Chef and mock. Many environments running RHEL or CentOS 6 could not be used without EPEL's plethora of useful tools. RHEL channels can conflict with each other because they are enabled on an individual host, case by case basis. I think, from old experiences, that having *anything* in EPEL that overlaps with any RHEL published channel is begging for pain. It may cause pain to current RHEL ansible users, but I think that the EPEL package needs to be renamed to something like "ansible25" to avoid conflicts with the RHEL channel. ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: [EPEL-devel] Re: Ansible in EL7
On 11 April 2018 at 10:02, Nico Kadel-Garciawrote: > On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 4:43 AM, Alexander Bokovoy > 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. It is a lot more nuanced than that. EPEL builds packages that do not overlap with the following channels: rhel-7-server-extras-rpms/ rhel-7-server-optional-rpms/ rhel-7-server-rpms/ rhel-ha-for-rhel-7-server-rpms/ rhel-server-rhscl-7-rpms/ These are chosen because they were the base set originally and other channels which might be available can have items which conflict with each other. This means that EPEL can conflict with somethings inside of "RHEL" but so can things are in "RHEL". > ___ > devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org -- Stephen J Smoogen. ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: [EPEL-devel] Re: Ansible in EL7
On 11 April 2018 at 15:02, Nico Kadel-Garciawrote: > On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 4:43 AM, Alexander Bokovoy > 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: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/FAQ#Does_EPEL_replace_packages_provided_within_Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux_or_layered_products.3F 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
Re: [EPEL-devel] Re: Ansible in EL7
On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 4:43 AM, Alexander Bokovoywrote: > 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. ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: [EPEL-devel] Re: Ansible in EL7
On 04/10/2018 11:05 PM, James Hogarth wrote: > At this point, no offense to Nirik and the maintenance he does on the > package, I'm actually tempted to just grab it from upstream directly at > https://releases.ansible.com/ansible/rpm/ Feel free. Do whatever you feel is best for you. > > At least then I can get consistency with selection of stable, preview or > nightly ... I don't really understand what you mean here... EPEL is going to pushing stable releases... with 2 weeks in testing. With 2.5.x upstream is going to try and do minor releases every 2-3weeks with all bugfixes that are landed then. EPEL will package those. kevin ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: [EPEL-devel] Re: Ansible in EL7
On Wed, 11 Apr 2018, 10:05 Peter Robinson,wrote: > On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 12:58 AM, Todd Zullinger wrote: > > James Hogarth wrote: > >> I was under the impression that as of 2.4.0 in EL7 we removed ansible > >> from EPEL7 since Red Hat included it in their extras repo, and EPEL > >> policy is not to conflict. > >> > >> I was surprised just now to see ansible 2.5.0 on a test centos system, > >> when it wasn't in extras, and on a little bit of a search found: > >> > >> https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2018-7ef392255b > >> > >> Of course this is a bit of an issue for CentOS/RHEL users that have > >> need for the Red Hat ansible as they have been upgraded, and RH will > >> need to epoch bump (or release 2.5.1 and we pull this from EPEL7 then) > >> to ensure they get it from the right repo. > >> > >> With a branch retirement shouldn't this have been blocked in koji? > > > > Red Hat announced today that Ansible was being deprecated > > from the extras channel. Their advice is that those who > > have "previously installed Ansible and its dependencies from > > the Extras channel are advised to enable and update from the > > Ansible Engine channel, or uninstall the packages as future > > errata will not be provided from the Extras channel." > > > > https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2018:1075 > > > > Given that, I believe it is reasonable to see ansible return > > to EPEL. This was discussed in previous EPEL meetings a > > bit, so I'm sure it was known to at least some of the folks > > involved. > > There probably should be an announcement sent to the epel announce > list then it gets to a wider audience so more people know this. > Especially if EPEL7 now has a clash with an optional repo that is available to all subscribers... There are priority or exclude filters people will need to add to their yum repository configurations that they may not be otherwise aware of if they want the "official Red Hat" build of it etc etc > > ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: [EPEL-devel] Re: Ansible in EL7
On ti, 10 huhti 2018, Todd Zullinger wrote: James Hogarth wrote: On Wed, 11 Apr 2018, 00:59 Todd Zullinger,wrote: Red Hat announced today that Ansible was being deprecated from the extras channel. Their advice is that those who have "previously installed Ansible and its dependencies from the Extras channel are advised to enable and update from the Ansible Engine channel, or uninstall the packages as future errata will not be provided from the Extras channel." https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2018:1075 Given that, I believe it is reasonable to see ansible return to EPEL. This was discussed in previous EPEL meetings a bit, so I'm sure it was known to at least some of the folks involved. Cheers for the info. It wasn't mentioned on the devel list, I didn't see it in the 7.5 release notes and it was still in extras when I checked a short while ago. In that case yes I agree it makes total sense to return to epel7 I wonder why they dropped it when the whole point of them bringing it in to begin with was for Satellite and Tower to have it in the standard RHEL repos. Seems so pointless to have only had one release there! Indeed, it was a bit strange. Perhaps someone with more insight into the rationale can comment. I have no particular knowledge of things, but maybe keeping a fast moving project like ansible in even the RHEL extras channel was a problem. Maybe the plan with the move to the "Ansible Engine" channel is to work closer with subscribers on migrating from version to version. And non-subscribers can just follow it in EPEL. I'd be interested in hearing more about the change, though I suspect those who know more either aren't on these lists or can't say more than Red Hat's advisory has already. 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. -- / Alexander Bokovoy ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: [EPEL-devel] Re: Ansible in EL7
On Wed, 11 Apr 2018, 01:26 Todd Zullinger,wrote: > James Hogarth wrote: > > On Wed, 11 Apr 2018, 00:59 Todd Zullinger, wrote: > >> Red Hat announced today that Ansible was being deprecated > >> from the extras channel. Their advice is that those who > >> have "previously installed Ansible and its dependencies from > >> the Extras channel are advised to enable and update from the > >> Ansible Engine channel, or uninstall the packages as future > >> errata will not be provided from the Extras channel." > >> > >> https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2018:1075 > >> > >> Given that, I believe it is reasonable to see ansible return > >> to EPEL. This was discussed in previous EPEL meetings a > >> bit, so I'm sure it was known to at least some of the folks > >> involved. > > > > Cheers for the info. > > > > It wasn't mentioned on the devel list, I didn't see it in the 7.5 release > > notes and it was still in extras when I checked a short while ago. > > > > In that case yes I agree it makes total sense to return to epel7 > > > > I wonder why they dropped it when the whole point of them bringing it in > to > > begin with was for Satellite and Tower to have it in the standard RHEL > > repos. > > > > Seems so pointless to have only had one release there! > > Indeed, it was a bit strange. Perhaps someone with more > insight into the rationale can comment. I have no > particular knowledge of things, but maybe keeping a fast > moving project like ansible in even the RHEL extras channel > was a problem. > > Maybe the plan with the move to the "Ansible Engine" channel > is to work closer with subscribers on migrating from version > to version. And non-subscribers can just follow it in EPEL. > > I'd be interested in hearing more about the change, though I > suspect those who know more either aren't on these lists or > can't say more than Red Hat's advisory has already. > > At this point, no offense to Nirik and the maintenance he does on the package, I'm actually tempted to just grab it from upstream directly at https://releases.ansible.com/ansible/rpm/ At least then I can get consistency with selection of stable, preview or nightly ... > ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: [EPEL-devel] Re: Ansible in EL7
James Hogarth wrote: > On Wed, 11 Apr 2018, 00:59 Todd Zullinger,wrote: >> Red Hat announced today that Ansible was being deprecated >> from the extras channel. Their advice is that those who >> have "previously installed Ansible and its dependencies from >> the Extras channel are advised to enable and update from the >> Ansible Engine channel, or uninstall the packages as future >> errata will not be provided from the Extras channel." >> >> https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2018:1075 >> >> Given that, I believe it is reasonable to see ansible return >> to EPEL. This was discussed in previous EPEL meetings a >> bit, so I'm sure it was known to at least some of the folks >> involved. > > Cheers for the info. > > It wasn't mentioned on the devel list, I didn't see it in the 7.5 release > notes and it was still in extras when I checked a short while ago. > > In that case yes I agree it makes total sense to return to epel7 > > I wonder why they dropped it when the whole point of them bringing it in to > begin with was for Satellite and Tower to have it in the standard RHEL > repos. > > Seems so pointless to have only had one release there! Indeed, it was a bit strange. Perhaps someone with more insight into the rationale can comment. I have no particular knowledge of things, but maybe keeping a fast moving project like ansible in even the RHEL extras channel was a problem. Maybe the plan with the move to the "Ansible Engine" channel is to work closer with subscribers on migrating from version to version. And non-subscribers can just follow it in EPEL. I'd be interested in hearing more about the change, though I suspect those who know more either aren't on these lists or can't say more than Red Hat's advisory has already. -- Todd ~~ I'm not fat. I am a nutritional overachiever. signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org