Hopefully I can help provide some clarity on this topic, though there is no easy answer to all aspects. We worked with the Ansible product team to bundle the Ansible Engine product with the RHEL Subscription. This wording is important to address the following which we have learned over the past year are critically important.
- Ansible Engine is a distinct and separate product, with separate channel / repo, lifecycle, release cadence, and support policies.
- Make AE ubiquitous and easily accessible - full support comes with a subscription
- As a separate product bundled with RHEL, it is not RHEL official content and can go back into EPEL (which was very important).
- The version of Ansible previously provided in RHEL Extras is now officially deprecated
Changing the package name in one channel does not make all of the problems go away. There are still Require and Provides metadata tags that would inevitably cause future conflicts. And probably other issues that I cannot think of at the moment.
So if a user decides to enable the AE & EPEL channels, then I guess they could use repo priorities to decide which version is more important to them. If we decide for them, we will be wrong 50% of the time.
If they are comfortable with EPEL content, I would assume they would simply not enable the AE channel and problem is solved. At least we are not making them choose between Extras and EPEL now. With that said, is this still a problem?