10:20 p.m.
The license of `ansible` 2.9.x has been corrected from `GPLv3+` to `GPLv3+ and BSD and
Python and MIT and ASL 2.0`. The previous `License:` tag did not properly account for the
multi-licensing.
Please note that this only applies to EPEL and Fedora 34 and 35. The license of `ansible`
5.x (the collections bundle), which is available on Fedora 36 and above, remains the
same.
--
Thanks,
Maxwell G (@gotmax23)
Pronouns: He/Him/Him
11:21 p.m.
New subject: ansible-core license change and update (Re: `ansible` Package License Change)
On Monday, May 9, 2022 10:20:25 PM CDT Maxwell G via devel wrote:
The license of `ansible` 2.9.x has been corrected from `GPLv3+` to
`GPLv3+
and BSD and Python and MIT and ASL 2.0`. The previous `License:` tag did
not properly account for the multi-licensing.
Please note that this only applies to EPEL and Fedora 34 and 35. The license
of `ansible` 5.x (the collections bundle), which is available on Fedora 36
and above, remains the same.
This has now been corrected[1] in Rawhide's ansible-core. To be explicit,
ansible-core's license has also been corrected from `GPLv3+` to `GPLv3+ and
BSD and Python and MIT and ASL 2.0`. This will propagate to F35 and F36 when I
get around to updating them.
This shouldn't have any practical consequences, as the GPL is still the
primary and most restrictive license.
On a related note, ansible-core 2.13.1 and ansible 6.0.0 were just released
upstream and have been updated in Rawhide[1]. In Fedora 36, ansible-core and
ansible will stay on 2.12.x and 5.x.x, respectively. However, I have also made
a COPR available[2] for F35 and F36 users who want to use the latest versions
of ansible-core, ansible, and the standalone collections that we have
packaged.
[1]: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-5fa1185e04
[2]: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/gotmax23/ansible-6/
--
Thanks,
Maxwell G (@gotmax23)
Pronouns: He/Him/His
6:25 a.m.
New subject: ansible-core license change and update (Re: `ansible` Package
License Change)
On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 12:22 AM Maxwell G via devel
<devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote:
On Monday, May 9, 2022 10:20:25 PM CDT Maxwell G via devel wrote:
> The license of `ansible` 2.9.x has been corrected from `GPLv3+` to `GPLv3+
> and BSD and Python and MIT and ASL 2.0`. The previous `License:` tag did
> not properly account for the multi-licensing.
>
> Please note that this only applies to EPEL and Fedora 34 and 35. The license
> of `ansible` 5.x (the collections bundle), which is available on Fedora 36
> and above, remains the same.
This has now been corrected[1] in Rawhide's ansible-core. To be explicit,
ansible-core's license has also been corrected from `GPLv3+` to `GPLv3+ and
BSD and Python and MIT and ASL 2.0`. This will propagate to F35 and F36 when I
get around to updating them.
This shouldn't have any practical consequences, as the GPL is still the
primary and most restrictive license.
On a related note, ansible-core 2.13.1 and ansible 6.0.0 were just released
upstream and have been updated in Rawhide[1]. In Fedora 36, ansible-core and
ansible will stay on 2.12.x and 5.x.x, respectively. However, I have also made
a COPR available[2] for F35 and F36 users who want to use the latest versions
of ansible-core, ansible, and the standalone collections that we have
packaged.
Whoever is working with that right now is welcome to my notes and
tools, at https://github.com/nkadel/ansiblerepo/ . 2.13.1 broke the
documentation creation tools, and the continuing insistence of
ansible-core on using "#!/usr/bin/env python" instead of
"#!/usr/bin/env python3" causes problems for Fedora unless you add a
"BuildRequires: /usr/bin/python". The "wibbly-wobbly, timey-wimey"
selection of "/usr/bin/env python" versus "/usr/bin/python" vs.
"/usr/bin/python3 vs. "%{__python3}" vs. "why are we putting a #!
line
in this file, it's a module not an executable script and gets
imported, not executed" is... well, it's a source of confusion. Using
'%py3_shebang_fix' would resolve a lot of this in the .spec file, but
my suggestions to apply such changes upstream have not been well
received.
Packaging ansible-core 2.13 for EPEL takes work. It requires python
3.8 or better, which require the commands "dnf modules enable
python38-devel; dnf modules enable python38" to be able to install on
RHEL 8 or 9, and there is a modest raft of missing python modules for
python38. That includes a pretty big tower of dependencies to provide
python38-jinja2 >= 3.0. Check the jinja2 dependency issue I reported
at https://github.com/ansible/ansible/issues/77620 . The conversation
got very strange, and I was pretty firmly informed that RPM packaging
is not supported by the ansible core developers. pm, only pip
installations. That.... will not work well for koji or mock, and I was
surprised at the insistence, since Red Hat owns ansible.com and sells
Ansible Tower licenses. See the ticket:
https://github.com/ansible/ansible/issues/77620
EPEL 8 or EPEL 9 would probably benefit from my list of associated
python38 RPMs to satisfy the other ansible-core requirements, such as
the python38-resolvelib update and python38-pbr. I've tried before to
assemble the credentials and permissions to build EPEL packages
myself, but have been balked so far by the variety of registration
requirements. I'm willing to put those in myself if I can get some
walkthrough help getting the permissions together. Or I'm happy to
work with someone with EPEL and/or Fedora privileges to get these
published, and I'm not insistent on credit. Any takers?
Nico Kadel-Garcia
> [1]: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-5fa1185e04
> [2]: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/gotmax23/ansible-6/
>
> --
> Thanks,
>
> Maxwell G (@gotmax23)
> Pronouns: He/Him/His_______________________________________________
> devel mailing list -- devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
> List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
9:56 p.m.
New subject: ansible-core license change and update (Re: `ansible` Package License Change)
On Thursday, June 23, 2022 6:25:00 AM CDT Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
Whoever is working with that right now is welcome to my notes and
tools, at https://github.com/nkadel/ansiblerepo/
I have glanced at it before. @kevin and I maintain ansible, ansible-core, and
many of the standalone collection packages in Fedora.
EPEL 8 or EPEL 9 would probably benefit from my list of associated
python38 RPMs to satisfy the other ansible-core requirements, such as
the python38-resolvelib update and python38-pbr.
Note that ansible-core and python38-resolvelib are part of RHEL so we cannot
provide them in EPEL. EPEL packages are *Extra* Packages for Enterprise Linux.
However, we could definitely use help with packaging the surrounding packages
for python38 on RHEL 8 :).
I've tried before to
assemble the credentials and permissions to build EPEL packages
myself, but have been balked so far by the variety of registration
requirements. I'm willing to put those in myself if I can get some
walkthrough help getting the permissions together. Or I'm happy to
work with someone with EPEL and/or Fedora privileges to get these
published, and I'm not insistent on credit. Any takers?
Take a look at https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/
Joining_the_Package_Maintainers/ and https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/
fesco/Packager_sponsor_policy/ . Usually, python38 compat packages for EPEL 8
are exempt from the review process if they're already packaged in Fedora, but
I don't see why you couldn't submit one for review in order to join the
packager group. There are other ways to join the packager group (see the
linked docs), but submitting a package review is the most common.
Also, note that there's no separate permissions for EPEL and Fedora Linux.
EPEL packagers are Fedora packagers.
--
Thanks,
Maxwell G (@gotmax23)
Pronouns: He/Him/His
679
days inactive
724
days old
3 comments
2 participants
participants (2)
-
Maxwell G -
Nico Kadel-Garcia