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. Source: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/epel-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/PFQDMUDCKUU6RLL4SVQP3ENU6I7RYRQO/ _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
