[EPEL-devel] Re: ansible1.9 package

2017-11-08 Thread Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos
On Sat, 2017-11-04 at 10:33 -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > > Breaking updates would be pushed only at these times (unless there > > is a > > *really* good reason). This could involve also writing some release > > notes > > (e.g. the packager could tick a box "breaking update" and submit a > > note

[EPEL-devel] Re: ansible1.9 package

2017-11-08 Thread Miroslav Suchý
Dne 4.11.2017 v 01:20 Stephen John Smoogen napsal(a): > What I normally do in an enterprise setting is get the packages I am > going to install on the boxes and collect them to their own > repository. I then sign those packages with a rpm key that I control > and then have all the client boxes

[EPEL-devel] Re: ansible1.9 package

2017-11-08 Thread Miroslav Suchý
Dne 3.11.2017 v 05:09 Peter Rex napsal(a): > 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 >

[EPEL-devel] Re: ansible1.9 package

2017-11-07 Thread R P Herrold
On Tue, 7 Nov 2017, Mátyás Selmeci wrote: > This highlights a problem I've occasionally had with EPEL, namely that > packages I depend on occasionally get removed. This especially causes trouble > when a package gets removed because it's now in RHEL, because it takes a few > months for CentOS and

[EPEL-devel] Re: ansible1.9 package

2017-11-06 Thread ~Stack~
On 11/04/2017 10:35 AM, Felix Schwarz wrote: > > Am 03.11.2017 um 16:09 schrieb Stephen John Smoogen: >> OK how can we better explain this in the future? > > I don't think there is an easy solution with "just another mail to -announce" > or so. Personally I don't find it really practical

[EPEL-devel] Re: ansible1.9 package

2017-11-04 Thread Kevin Fenzi
On 11/04/2017 08:35 AM, Felix Schwarz wrote: > > Am 03.11.2017 um 16:09 schrieb Stephen John Smoogen: >> OK how can we better explain this in the future? > > I don't think there is an easy solution with "just another mail to -announce" > or so. Personally I don't find it really practical

[EPEL-devel] Re: ansible1.9 package

2017-11-04 Thread Felix Schwarz
Am 03.11.2017 um 16:09 schrieb Stephen John Smoogen: > OK how can we better explain this in the future? I don't think there is an easy solution with "just another mail to -announce" or so. Personally I don't find it really practical scanning a mailing list for relevant packages (and filtering

[EPEL-devel] Re: ansible1.9 package

2017-11-04 Thread James Hogarth
On 3 Nov 2017 9:28 pm, "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 servers,

[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] Re: ansible1.9 package

2017-11-02 Thread Kevin Fenzi
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

[EPEL-devel] Re: ansible1.9 package

2017-11-02 Thread Ricardo J. Barberis
El Jueves 02/11/2017 a las 15:03, Peter Rex escribió: > 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.

[EPEL-devel] Re: ansible1.9 package

2017-11-02 Thread Stephen John Smoogen
On 2 November 2017 at 14:03, 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

[EPEL-devel] Re: ansible1.9 package

2017-11-02 Thread Peter Rex
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. On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 9:28 AM, Ricardo J. Barberis

[EPEL-devel] Re: ansible1.9 package

2017-11-02 Thread Ricardo J. Barberis
El Miércoles 01/11/2017 a las 23:58, Peter Rex escribió: > Is gone. Any particular reason? Yep, mostly security vulnerabilities and 2.x being available, check out these threads for more info: