On 11 April 2018 at 15:02, Nico Kadel-Garcia <nkadel@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 4:43 AM, Alexander Bokovoy <abokovoy@xxxxxxxxxx> 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. _______________________________________________ epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to epel-devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
