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. _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
