On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 7:29 PM Nico Kadel-Garcia <nkadel(a)gmail.com> wrote:
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
I realize I was unclear. The new "ansible" tarball from
pypi.org has
145 distinct software licenses, and many distinct galaxy collection
published ansible modules. The new "ansible-core" tarball is much
smaller, even smaller than the old "ansible" package due to some bulky
modules being transferred to the galaxy collection.
Splitting off the variety of add-on modules makes sense. Replacing the
core package with the add-on modules and moving aside the core seems
exactly backwards.