On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 4:32 PM Ben Cotton <bcotton(a)redhat.com> wrote:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Ansible5
== Summary ==
The ansible project has re-organized how they release and distribute
ansible. This change moves Fedora to be in sync with those changes and
retires the old 'ansible classic/2.9.x' package in favor of a
'ansible' package that pulls in ansible-core (the engine) and includes
all the collections in upstream ansible releases.
I wrote to the various upstream bugtrackers about this already. The
re-org upstream is confusing and unwelcome, and creates a stack of
problems.
I would publish ansible-core as just that, with a "Provides: ansible
%{version{-%{release}" and even "Obsoletes: ansible >= %{version}".
The new
pypi.org tarball published as "ansible" isn't. It's a tarball
of components from the Ansible galaxy collection, and it is
unnecessary for the basic ansible-core operation, which are much
bulkier than the previous "ansible" and contains approximately 145
distinct software licenses. That.... is a sign of a packaging problem
that I've discussed on the
pypi.org issues pages, at
The new "ansible" labeled
pypi.org module has no full provenance I've
been able to find. It assembles a number of distinct galaxy collection
published re[ps from
https://github.com/orgs/ansible-community/, but
assembled without any reference tool that I can find or detect any
documentation for. I'd say that this is messy and not ready for
bundling, and hope that its authors can clean this up.
Given choices I'd publish the "ansible_collections" tarball as just
such an RPM, since it is installed in
/usr/lib/python3.[subversion]/site-packages/ansible_collections/ and
should have been labeled that way. The "ansible" package could be a
meta package with "Requires: ansible-core ansible_collections" to
avoid the versioning confusion.