On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 11:39 PM Kevin Fenzi <kevin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 07:44:12PM -0400, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 7:29 PM Nico Kadel-Garcia <nkadel@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 4:32 PM Ben Cotton <bcotton@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Ansible5 > > > > > > > > == Summary == > > > > > > > > The ansible project has re-organized how they release and distribute > > > > ansible. This change moves Fedora to be in sync with those changes and > > > > retires the old 'ansible classic/2.9.x' package in favor of a > > > > 'ansible' package that pulls in ansible-core (the engine) and includes > > > > all the collections in upstream ansible releases. > > > > > > I wrote to the various upstream bugtrackers about this already. The > > > re-org upstream is confusing and unwelcome, and creates a stack of > > > problems. > > Yeah, it's been confusing to people for sure, but it does also help out > a lot with other problems. :( it could have made good sense, and still would, for the "ansible" package to be what is now being colloquially referred to as "ansible-core", but for which the published upstream git repo is still https://github.com/ansible/ansible, and which is and will remain accessible as a github release tarball with the old numbering. The pypi.org published "ansible-core" is a republication of that repo with a new name duck-taped on it. Fragmenting out the bulky and potentially dynamic set of tools that are now in the "galaxy collections" suite makes some sense, but the result is that to get any of the core modules like "ansible.posix" we wind up including 573 Megabytes of unneeded and unwelcome debris in /usr/lib/python3.6/site-packages/ansible_collections. Very few of us need more than 10% of the list There is no specific source repository for the "ansible_collections" tarball, as best I can tell. The list of modules selected from the galaxy collection is very large, but incomplete and I've not seen any criteria for what goes in that tarball and what does not. Have you seen any? I'd suggest that discarding the pypi.org renaming and instead using the raw tarballs from github as sources for individual galaxy collection modules helps resolve. This would keep the numbering of the "ansible" RPM consistent, and its core functionality. The modules which have been shifted to the galaxy collection, such as the "ec2" and "cisco" modules, could and should be bundled individually as Fedora has been doing quite effectively. I did some tests: an RPM of the current pypi.org tarball mislabeled as "ansible" occupies more than 570 MBytes of local disk. If you want a lightweight Ansible setup, say for applying some playbooks to your localhost, it's an unreasonable burden. Those numbers do not include the documentation: The sphinx build of the HTML docs is something I've tried, but so far is not working with my test SRPM. As it is, I've had to rename doc or license files that have " " in the filename because the '%doc' and '%license' macros do not like whitespace in filenames, and split them up because a '%license' or '%doc' that have so many hundreds of entries overwhelms SRPM scripting. Packaging up the individual modules or sets of modules individually avoids this unwelcome burden. > > > I would publish ansible-core as just that, with a "Provides: ansible > > > %{version{-%{release}" and even "Obsoletes: ansible >= %{version}". > > That would radically diverge from upstream and cause _more_ confusion. Upstream already confused people. I don't think it justifies repeating their bundling mistakes, mistakes that are not reflected in the upstream source code for the software but only in intermediate repackaging and which Fedora has so far effectively avoided. _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
