On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 4:43 AM, Alexander Bokovoy <abokovoy(a)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.