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.