On 11 April 2018 at 16:11, <me@xxxxxxxxxx> 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 <thaumos@xxxxxxxxx> 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-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/message/PFQDMUDCKUU6RLL4SVQP3ENU6I7RYRQO/
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
