On 11 April 2018 at 15:02, Nico Kadel-Garcia <nkadel(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 4:43 AM, Alexander Bokovoy
> 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
The official EPEL policy with regards to conflicts is here:
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.