On 11 April 2018 at 15:02, Nico Kadel-Garcia nkadel@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 4:43 AM, Alexander Bokovoy abokovoy@redhat.com 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_...
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@lists.fedoraproject.org