On Wed, Oct 27, 2021 at 9:51 AM Matt Martz <m...@sivel.net> wrote: > The Ansible Core team is not responsible for OS packaging. The only > official packaging of ansible-core for upstream lives on pypi.org. From > a downstream Red Hat perspective, ansible-core 2.11 is available to Ansible > Automation Platform customers. >
"Ansible Core team is not responsible for OS packaging" seems problematic when it disregards OS packaging as a concern. You call out that "From a downstream Red Hat perspective, ... " - but don't you work at Red Hat, and isn't this a conflict of interest to point out that a subscription product that you support is up-to-date, as an answer to whether the community releases are also up-to-date? Further to this, isn't it also a conflict of interest that you would vote on whether Oracle Linux should be a supported OS target for Ansible 2.9, and would consider a one line feature to add support to be out-of-scope for Ansible 2.9? It's barely even a code change, as it is part of YAML configuration data, and it has been proven to be stable for months in Ansible 2.11. I will note that ansible-core has been accepted into the appstream for > CentOS Stream, and will also be included in RHEL 8.6 and RHEL 9.0 starting > in May. > This is good - but, this also says that Ansible 2.9 is still the current release, and is only just being added to CentOS Stream. Upstream might be different, but downstream - people are still resistant of Ansible 2.10+, and this is why it is important to still patch Ansible 2.9 until these resistances can be overcome, and Ansible 2.11+ can be made generally available to users. > You will note that I mention the package name `ansible-core` several times > here. In 2.10 the package was split into 2 parts, an `ansible-core` > packaging containing the CLI tools, and a small number of plugins, and then > the `ansible` package which bundles a large number of community maintained > plugins. > Yes, I did notice. I particularly noticed it's absence on almost every distribution I checked, including Fedora 34: # dnf list 'ansible-core' Last metadata expiration check: 4:32:06 ago on Wed 27 Oct 2021 07:10:58 AM. Error: No matching Packages to list I hoped to be wrong. I tried to find evidence of it being deployed at scale, and I found the opposite. Ansible 2.9 is current for most people today. I do see ansible-core packages for Fedora listed at > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ansible-core > This is great. But, it is only great once it is delivered. Right now, it is not great at all. Please take the above as constructive criticism. I am asking for an objective review. I am not trying to insult. Are there any other voices from the Core team on this issue, particularly ones that do not work for Red Hat? (And I also don't mean the Red Hat angle to be a slant... conflict of interest is insidious, and it affects us all... which is why it should be called out...) Thanks! > > On Wed, Oct 27, 2021 at 1:31 AM Mark Mielke <mark.mie...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi all: >> >> This Pull Request was closed due to "The 2.9 release is only accepting >> security fixes at this time in its lifecycle. As such, this PR does not >> meet the requirements to be backported to 2.9.": >> >> https://github.com/ansible/ansible/pull/76146 >> >> However, availability of releases beyond Ansible 2.9 for regular users is >> limited: >> - EPEL 7: ansible-2.9.25-1.el7.noarch.rpm >> <https://dl.fedoraproject.org/pub/epel/7/x86_64/Packages/a/ansible-2.9.25-1.el7.noarch.rpm> >> - EPEL 8: ansible-2.9.25-1.el8.noarch.rpm >> <https://dl.fedoraproject.org/pub/epel/8/Everything/x86_64/Packages/a/ansible-2.9.25-1.el8.noarch.rpm> >> - Fedora 34: ansible-2.9.25-1.fc34.noarch.rpm >> <https://dl.fedoraproject.org/pub/fedora/linux/updates/34/Everything/x86_64/Packages/a/ansible-2.9.25-1.fc34.noarch.rpm> >> >> This seems to be a conflict between what the Ansible devel believe to be >> user requirements, and what the users believe to be requirements. Something >> is getting blocked in the middle - perhaps the move to collections? >> >> In any case, please re-review the true state of Ansible 2.9, and whether >> or not it should be considered "current". If Ansible 2.9 is really no >> longer current, is there effort being made by Ansible devel to ensure that >> Ansible 2.11 and later are published to users on standard channels? >> >> I really don't want to fork Ansible 2.9 and manage my own patches. >> Especially for simple patches like the one I referenced. >> >> Thanks, >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Ansible Development" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to ansible-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >> To view this discussion on the web visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ansible-devel/b8f8c34f-2012-410a-9289-5f97940e1774n%40googlegroups.com >> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ansible-devel/b8f8c34f-2012-410a-9289-5f97940e1774n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >> . >> > > > -- > Matt Martz > @sivel > sivel.net > -- Mark Mielke <mark.mie...@gmail.com> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ansible Development" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ansible-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ansible-devel/CALm7yL3%2Bu%2BxfHS5JyOh%3DaAEK1XWn8f%3DcxdW4tWR_S5vv5wb_SA%40mail.gmail.com.
