Ah thanks, I ended up finding the 1.9.6-2 version on a mirror that hadn't been updated yet. Seems to work fine.
On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 9:09 AM, Stephen John Smoogen <smo...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 3 November 2017 at 00:09, Peter Rex <prex5...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Security flaws mean nothing to the application I use Ansible for, but > > stability does. Control servers are in private networks, and they > configure > > equipment guarded by murderous thugs, so no problem there. > > > > The control servers don't get updated that often, but when they do, it's > not > > good if things stop working, because, you know, the equipment they > configure > > is owned by people who employ murderous thugs to guard it. Kind of a > > problem. > > > > We originally looked at Ansible and thought, OK, Red Hat, nothing more > > stable than that. Ansible, flagship product. It seemed like a good bet, > but > > turned out not to be, that Red Hat wasn't likely to deprecate a major > > version of a software package during the lifetime of one of its operating > > systems, in this case EL6. Given how much of a moving target Ansible has > > turned out to be, I definitely should have subscribed to epel-announce, > to, > > you know, minimize the chance of getting murdered, but here we are. > > > > OK how can we better explain this in the future? There seems to be > some sort of misunderstanding that EPEL is giving the same guarentees > as a paid for product from Red Hat. I can understand the grumpiness if > you had gotten this under Red Hat contract support and things got > bumped. In that case you are paying Red Hat to do that work of keeping > software around for N years or it is clear in the contract that this > software is not considered 'long term supported'. > > In any case you can get a hold of ansible1.9 from > https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=690794 > > > > > > Anyhow, thanks for the feedback. > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 2:48 PM, Kevin Fenzi <ke...@scrye.com> wrote: > >> > >> On 11/02/2017 11:03 AM, Peter Rex wrote: > >> > Thanks for the info, Ricardo. Hadn't found the retirement notice. > >> > Security, > >> > I guess. I can't resist saying, though, that I regret using Ansible > and > >> > my > >> > assumption that one of the Es in EPEL stood for Enterprise. Oh well, > >> > live > >> > and learn. > >> > >> Sorry things didn't work out as you would have liked. > >> > >> ansible1.9 was always intended as a short term 'bridge' to help give > >> folks more time to migrate to 2.0. When upstream stopped supporting it, > >> we retired it in EPEL as well. ansible is very very fast moving and > >> complex and there's no way we could backport even security fixes to an > >> out of date 1.9 version. Sorry. > >> > >> You can of course still use 1.9 if you wish, just realize that it > >> doesn't get any bugfixes or security updates. > >> > >> kevin > >> > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > >> To unsubscribe send an email to epel-devel-leave@lists. > fedoraproject.org > >> > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > > To unsubscribe send an email to epel-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org > > > > > > -- > Stephen J Smoogen. > _______________________________________________ > epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > To unsubscribe send an email to epel-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org >
_______________________________________________ epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to epel-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
