Re: [EPEL-devel] Re: Ansible in EL7
On Sat, Apr 14, 2018 at 2:36 PM, Neal Gompa <ngompa13(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, Apr 14, 2018 at 2:28 PM, Nico Kadel-Garcia
<nkadel(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 14, 2018 at 2:04 PM, Kevin Fenzi <kevin(a)scrye.com> wrote:
>> On 04/11/2018 03:13 PM, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
>>> It may cause pain to current RHEL ansible users, but I think that the
>>> EPEL package needs to be renamed to something like "ansible25" to
>>> avoid conflicts with the RHEL channel.
>>
>> I don't think thats practical / desirable.
>>
>> kevin
>
> I'd agree that it would have been easier to do up front. On further
> thought, say call it "ansible-rhel" to resemble the way mysql and java
> are published as distiinctly named sets of tools for different
> published releases from different authors.
This really doesn't matter. At the end of it, the Ansible guys are
willing support Ansible on EL7 from either source, so it's a moot
point. I would be shocked if we wouldn't be keeping it relatively in
sync between the two channels anyway, since the reason for Ansible
being moved out of Extras is so it can move faster.
So what? It only takes an individual consistency in one configuration
to cause configurations for one feature to break ansible entirely for
configurations in the even infinitesimally distinct version of ansible
from the other channel. Maintaining compatibility between different
channels for something with the same package only works well until a
single newly named config file or library is a critical part of the
software, and testing for breakages requires switching back and forth
between the channels to enforce upgrades from the other channel. It
requires regression testing from components from another respository
you're not even using.
Setting "Priorities" is useful to avoid mixing the streams, but in
that case it only takes one added RPM with a name that doesn't exist
in the other repository to mess up the dependencies. We saw that with
"mysql-libs", in particular, and various "openssl" libraries. It was
a
*pain*. If you want it to move faster, and not interfere with an
existing package of the identical name, it's cleaner for the sysadmins
in the field to give it a different name.
> Leave it as "ansible" and call it good.
>
>
> --
> 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!
> _______________________________________________
> devel mailing list -- devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org