Hi all,
I was under the impression that as of 2.4.0 in EL7 we removed ansible from EPEL7 since Red Hat included it in their extras repo, and EPEL policy is not to conflict.
I was surprised just now to see ansible 2.5.0 on a test centos system, when it wasn't in extras, and on a little bit of a search found:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2018-7ef392255b
Of course this is a bit of an issue for CentOS/RHEL users that have need for the Red Hat ansible as they have been upgraded, and RH will need to epoch bump (or release 2.5.1 and we pull this from EPEL7 then) to ensure they get it from the right repo.
With a branch retirement shouldn't this have been blocked in koji?
Cheers,
James
James Hogarth wrote:
I was under the impression that as of 2.4.0 in EL7 we removed ansible from EPEL7 since Red Hat included it in their extras repo, and EPEL policy is not to conflict.
I was surprised just now to see ansible 2.5.0 on a test centos system, when it wasn't in extras, and on a little bit of a search found:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2018-7ef392255b
Of course this is a bit of an issue for CentOS/RHEL users that have need for the Red Hat ansible as they have been upgraded, and RH will need to epoch bump (or release 2.5.1 and we pull this from EPEL7 then) to ensure they get it from the right repo.
With a branch retirement shouldn't this have been blocked in koji?
Red Hat announced today that Ansible was being deprecated from the extras channel. Their advice is that those who have "previously installed Ansible and its dependencies from the Extras channel are advised to enable and update from the Ansible Engine channel, or uninstall the packages as future errata will not be provided from the Extras channel."
https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2018:1075
Given that, I believe it is reasonable to see ansible return to EPEL. This was discussed in previous EPEL meetings a bit, so I'm sure it was known to at least some of the folks involved.
On Wed, 11 Apr 2018, 00:59 Todd Zullinger, tmz@pobox.com wrote:
James Hogarth wrote:
I was under the impression that as of 2.4.0 in EL7 we removed ansible from EPEL7 since Red Hat included it in their extras repo, and EPEL policy is not to conflict.
I was surprised just now to see ansible 2.5.0 on a test centos system, when it wasn't in extras, and on a little bit of a search found:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2018-7ef392255b
Of course this is a bit of an issue for CentOS/RHEL users that have need for the Red Hat ansible as they have been upgraded, and RH will need to epoch bump (or release 2.5.1 and we pull this from EPEL7 then) to ensure they get it from the right repo.
With a branch retirement shouldn't this have been blocked in koji?
Red Hat announced today that Ansible was being deprecated from the extras channel. Their advice is that those who have "previously installed Ansible and its dependencies from the Extras channel are advised to enable and update from the Ansible Engine channel, or uninstall the packages as future errata will not be provided from the Extras channel."
https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2018:1075
Given that, I believe it is reasonable to see ansible return to EPEL. This was discussed in previous EPEL meetings a bit, so I'm sure it was known to at least some of the folks involved.
Cheers for the info.
It wasn't mentioned on the devel list, I didn't see it in the 7.5 release notes and it was still in extras when I checked a short while ago.
In that case yes I agree it makes total sense to return to epel7
I wonder why they dropped it when the whole point of them bringing it in to begin with was for Satellite and Tower to have it in the standard RHEL repos.
Seems so pointless to have only had one release there!
On Wed, 11 Apr 2018, 01:13 James Hogarth, james.hogarth@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, 11 Apr 2018, 00:59 Todd Zullinger, tmz@pobox.com wrote:
James Hogarth wrote:
I was under the impression that as of 2.4.0 in EL7 we removed ansible from EPEL7 since Red Hat included it in their extras repo, and EPEL policy is not to conflict.
I was surprised just now to see ansible 2.5.0 on a test centos system, when it wasn't in extras, and on a little bit of a search found:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2018-7ef392255b
Of course this is a bit of an issue for CentOS/RHEL users that have need for the Red Hat ansible as they have been upgraded, and RH will need to epoch bump (or release 2.5.1 and we pull this from EPEL7 then) to ensure they get it from the right repo.
With a branch retirement shouldn't this have been blocked in koji?
Red Hat announced today that Ansible was being deprecated from the extras channel. Their advice is that those who have "previously installed Ansible and its dependencies from the Extras channel are advised to enable and update from the Ansible Engine channel, or uninstall the packages as future errata will not be provided from the Extras channel."
https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2018:1075
Given that, I believe it is reasonable to see ansible return to EPEL. This was discussed in previous EPEL meetings a bit, so I'm sure it was known to at least some of the folks involved.
Cheers for the info.
It wasn't mentioned on the devel list, I didn't see it in the 7.5 release notes and it was still in extras when I checked a short while ago.
In that case yes I agree it makes total sense to return to epel7
I wonder why they dropped it when the whole point of them bringing it in to begin with was for Satellite and Tower to have it in the standard RHEL repos.
Seems so pointless to have only had one release there!
And having read the bugzilla entry now... they moved it to its own product channel that all RHEL subscribers have access to...
Again this feels so very pointless.
James Hogarth wrote:
On Wed, 11 Apr 2018, 00:59 Todd Zullinger, tmz@pobox.com wrote:
Red Hat announced today that Ansible was being deprecated from the extras channel. Their advice is that those who have "previously installed Ansible and its dependencies from the Extras channel are advised to enable and update from the Ansible Engine channel, or uninstall the packages as future errata will not be provided from the Extras channel."
https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2018:1075
Given that, I believe it is reasonable to see ansible return to EPEL. This was discussed in previous EPEL meetings a bit, so I'm sure it was known to at least some of the folks involved.
Cheers for the info.
It wasn't mentioned on the devel list, I didn't see it in the 7.5 release notes and it was still in extras when I checked a short while ago.
In that case yes I agree it makes total sense to return to epel7
I wonder why they dropped it when the whole point of them bringing it in to begin with was for Satellite and Tower to have it in the standard RHEL repos.
Seems so pointless to have only had one release there!
Indeed, it was a bit strange. Perhaps someone with more insight into the rationale can comment. I have no particular knowledge of things, but maybe keeping a fast moving project like ansible in even the RHEL extras channel was a problem.
Maybe the plan with the move to the "Ansible Engine" channel is to work closer with subscribers on migrating from version to version. And non-subscribers can just follow it in EPEL.
I'd be interested in hearing more about the change, though I suspect those who know more either aren't on these lists or can't say more than Red Hat's advisory has already.
On Wed, 11 Apr 2018, 01:26 Todd Zullinger, tmz@pobox.com wrote:
James Hogarth wrote:
On Wed, 11 Apr 2018, 00:59 Todd Zullinger, tmz@pobox.com wrote:
Red Hat announced today that Ansible was being deprecated from the extras channel. Their advice is that those who have "previously installed Ansible and its dependencies from the Extras channel are advised to enable and update from the Ansible Engine channel, or uninstall the packages as future errata will not be provided from the Extras channel."
https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2018:1075
Given that, I believe it is reasonable to see ansible return to EPEL. This was discussed in previous EPEL meetings a bit, so I'm sure it was known to at least some of the folks involved.
Cheers for the info.
It wasn't mentioned on the devel list, I didn't see it in the 7.5 release notes and it was still in extras when I checked a short while ago.
In that case yes I agree it makes total sense to return to epel7
I wonder why they dropped it when the whole point of them bringing it in
to
begin with was for Satellite and Tower to have it in the standard RHEL repos.
Seems so pointless to have only had one release there!
Indeed, it was a bit strange. Perhaps someone with more insight into the rationale can comment. I have no particular knowledge of things, but maybe keeping a fast moving project like ansible in even the RHEL extras channel was a problem.
Maybe the plan with the move to the "Ansible Engine" channel is to work closer with subscribers on migrating from version to version. And non-subscribers can just follow it in EPEL.
I'd be interested in hearing more about the change, though I suspect those who know more either aren't on these lists or can't say more than Red Hat's advisory has already.
At this point, no offense to Nirik and the maintenance he does on the package, I'm actually tempted to just grab it from upstream directly at https://releases.ansible.com/ansible/rpm/
At least then I can get consistency with selection of stable, preview or nightly ...
On 04/10/2018 11:05 PM, James Hogarth wrote:
At this point, no offense to Nirik and the maintenance he does on the package, I'm actually tempted to just grab it from upstream directly at https://releases.ansible.com/ansible/rpm/
Feel free. Do whatever you feel is best for you.
At least then I can get consistency with selection of stable, preview or nightly ...
I don't really understand what you mean here... EPEL is going to pushing stable releases... with 2 weeks in testing.
With 2.5.x upstream is going to try and do minor releases every 2-3weeks with all bugfixes that are landed then. EPEL will package those.
kevin
On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 12:58 AM, Todd Zullinger tmz@pobox.com wrote:
James Hogarth wrote:
I was under the impression that as of 2.4.0 in EL7 we removed ansible from EPEL7 since Red Hat included it in their extras repo, and EPEL policy is not to conflict.
I was surprised just now to see ansible 2.5.0 on a test centos system, when it wasn't in extras, and on a little bit of a search found:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2018-7ef392255b
Of course this is a bit of an issue for CentOS/RHEL users that have need for the Red Hat ansible as they have been upgraded, and RH will need to epoch bump (or release 2.5.1 and we pull this from EPEL7 then) to ensure they get it from the right repo.
With a branch retirement shouldn't this have been blocked in koji?
Red Hat announced today that Ansible was being deprecated from the extras channel. Their advice is that those who have "previously installed Ansible and its dependencies from the Extras channel are advised to enable and update from the Ansible Engine channel, or uninstall the packages as future errata will not be provided from the Extras channel."
https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2018:1075
Given that, I believe it is reasonable to see ansible return to EPEL. This was discussed in previous EPEL meetings a bit, so I'm sure it was known to at least some of the folks involved.
There probably should be an announcement sent to the epel announce list then it gets to a wider audience so more people know this.
On Wed, 11 Apr 2018, 10:05 Peter Robinson, pbrobinson@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 12:58 AM, Todd Zullinger tmz@pobox.com wrote:
James Hogarth wrote:
I was under the impression that as of 2.4.0 in EL7 we removed ansible from EPEL7 since Red Hat included it in their extras repo, and EPEL policy is not to conflict.
I was surprised just now to see ansible 2.5.0 on a test centos system, when it wasn't in extras, and on a little bit of a search found:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2018-7ef392255b
Of course this is a bit of an issue for CentOS/RHEL users that have need for the Red Hat ansible as they have been upgraded, and RH will need to epoch bump (or release 2.5.1 and we pull this from EPEL7 then) to ensure they get it from the right repo.
With a branch retirement shouldn't this have been blocked in koji?
Red Hat announced today that Ansible was being deprecated from the extras channel. Their advice is that those who have "previously installed Ansible and its dependencies from the Extras channel are advised to enable and update from the Ansible Engine channel, or uninstall the packages as future errata will not be provided from the Extras channel."
https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2018:1075
Given that, I believe it is reasonable to see ansible return to EPEL. This was discussed in previous EPEL meetings a bit, so I'm sure it was known to at least some of the folks involved.
There probably should be an announcement sent to the epel announce list then it gets to a wider audience so more people know this.
Especially if EPEL7 now has a clash with an optional repo that is available to all subscribers...
There are priority or exclude filters people will need to add to their yum repository configurations that they may not be otherwise aware of if they want the "official Red Hat" build of it etc etc
On 04/11/2018 04:52 AM, James Hogarth wrote:
Especially if EPEL7 now has a clash with an optional repo that is available to all subscribers...
There are priority or exclude filters people will need to add to their yum repository configurations that they may not be otherwise aware of if they want the "official Red Hat" build of it etc etc
Well, it's available to all, but I would think you would have to enable it, but yes, an announcement would help people decide where to get ansible from.
kevin
On 11 April 2018 at 14:30, Kevin Fenzi kevin@scrye.com wrote:
On 04/11/2018 04:52 AM, James Hogarth wrote:
Especially if EPEL7 now has a clash with an optional repo that is available to all subscribers...
There are priority or exclude filters people will need to add to their yum repository configurations that they may not be otherwise aware of if they want the "official Red Hat" build of it etc etc
Well, it's available to all, but I would think you would have to enable it, but yes, an announcement would help people decide where to get ansible from.
Right ... but if someone wants to use the "supported" ansible as part of their support contract, then given how common EPEL is on systems they really do need to know that they must add an excludepkgs to their EPEL yum configuration or alternatively alter priorities.
Otherwise it's going to be very "arbitrary" which ansible they get.
On 04/11/2018 02:04 AM, Peter Robinson wrote:
There probably should be an announcement sent to the epel announce list then it gets to a wider audience so more people know this.
Yep. But the RH announcement only went out monday, and I am at a hackfest this week. I'll try and get something out this week or early next.
kevin
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.
On 11 April 2018 at 20:32, Dylan Silva thaumos@gmail.com 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.
- Deprecate Ansible from Extras.
- 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.
Thank you very much for joining the conversation.
It's a significant relief that from your point of view it doesn't matter where it comes from.
For what it is worth we (speaking somewhat on behalf of my team but not as a spokesperson of the company I'm presently contracted at) prefer it to come from EPEL, and are grateful to see it return there from extras for a variety of reasons.
We are also very grateful for your preview/nightly repositories and plan in our CI environment to take advantage of these in a more aggressive fashion to catch regressions early that may affect us so we can report them upstream ASAP in future.
It's useful and refreshing to get some of the background of the decisions made, and though communication wasn't great, it's all nice and plain for people to find in the archives and we can move forward in a positive fashion as a community :)
Now ... time to go through a few dozen roles switching out 'with_*' for 'loop' and fixing up 'when' conditionals ... got to hurry before 2.9 appears :)
epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Dylan Silva -
James Hogarth -
Kevin Fenzi -
Peter Robinson -
Todd Zullinger