[EPEL-devel] Re: ansible1.9 package

2017-11-03 Thread Stephen John Smoogen
On 3 November 2017 at 17:28, Peter Rex wrote: > You seem to be the guy who does the builds. If you could advise, despite the > grumpiness: > > Since updating Ansible playbooks, tasks, libraries and such to work with a > more current Ansible version isn't practical, on existing

[EPEL-devel] Re: ansible1.9 package

2017-11-03 Thread Peter Rex
You seem to be the guy who does the builds. If you could advise, despite the grumpiness: Since updating Ansible playbooks, tasks, libraries and such to work with a more current Ansible version isn't practical, on existing servers, we're thinking of adding "exclude=ansible1.9 ansible" to the

[EPEL-devel] Re: ansible1.9 package

2017-11-03 Thread Peter Rex
They aren't very smart. I'm pretty sure I could pin the blame on Ricardo. On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 6:08 AM, Manuel Wolfshant wrote: > On 11/03/2017 06:09 AM, Peter Rex wrote: > > Security flaws mean nothing to the application I use Ansible for, but > stability does.

[EPEL-devel] Re: ansible1.9 package

2017-11-03 Thread Peter Rex
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 wrote: > On 3 November 2017 at 00:09, Peter Rex wrote: > > Security flaws mean nothing to

[EPEL-devel] Re: ansible1.9 package

2017-11-03 Thread Ricardo J. Barberis
El Viernes 03/11/2017 a las 13:12, Manuel Wolfshant escribió: > On 11/03/2017 05:40 PM, Ricardo J. Barberis wrote: > > El Viernes 03/11/2017 a las 12:09, Stephen John Smoogen escribió: > >> OK how can we better explain this in the future? There seems to be > >> some sort of misunderstanding that

[EPEL-devel] Re: ansible1.9 package

2017-11-03 Thread Jason L Tibbitts III
> "SJS" == Stephen John Smoogen writes: SJS> OK how can we better explain this in the future? I really tried, in the "Can I rely on these packages?" section of the EPEL wiki page: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL#Can_I_rely_on_these_packages.3F Someone already quoted

[EPEL-devel] Re: ansible1.9 package

2017-11-03 Thread Manuel Wolfshant
On 11/03/2017 05:40 PM, Ricardo J. Barberis wrote: El Viernes 03/11/2017 a las 12:09, Stephen John Smoogen escribió: 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

[EPEL-devel] Re: ansible1.9 package

2017-11-03 Thread Ricardo J. Barberis
El Viernes 03/11/2017 a las 12:09, Stephen John Smoogen escribió: > 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't remember which one it was, but there was a

[EPEL-devel] Re: ansible1.9 package

2017-11-03 Thread Stephen John Smoogen
On 3 November 2017 at 00:09, Peter Rex 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

[EPEL-devel] Fedora EPEL 7 updates-testing report

2017-11-03 Thread updates
The following Fedora EPEL 7 Security updates need testing: Age URL 970 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-1087 dokuwiki-0-0.24.20140929c.el7 732 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-dac7ed832f mcollective-2.8.4-1.el7 315

[EPEL-devel] Fedora EPEL 6 updates-testing report

2017-11-03 Thread updates
The following Fedora EPEL 6 Security updates need testing: Age URL 848 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-7031 python-virtualenv-12.0.7-1.el6 842 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-7168 rubygem-crack-0.3.2-2.el6 732