Latest upstream release: 2.10.0a1 Current version/release in rawhide: 2.9.9-3.fc33 URL: http://www.ansible.com Please consult the package updates policy before you issue an update to a stable branch: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Updates_Policy/ More information about the service that created this bug can be found at: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Upstream_release_monitoring Please keep in mind that with any upstream change, there may also be packaging changes that need to be made. Specifically, please remember that it is your responsibility to review the new version to ensure that the licensing is still correct and that no non-free or legally problematic items have been added upstream. Based on the information from anitya: https://release-monitoring.org/project/6097/
The following Sources of the specfile are not valid URLs so we cannot automatically build the new version for you. Please use URLs in your Source declarations if possible. - ansible.attr - ansible-generator - macros.ansible
So... I don't think we want to update fedora with this at this time. That said, we should come up with a plan. :) (Or perhaps there is one and no one told me) Will this just update the 'ansible' package and we introduce a new 'ansible-community-collections' (or whatever name) that goes with it and we can update independently? Or should we leave the 'ansible' package at 2.9.x and make a new 'ansible-base' package and 'ansible-community-collections' that work together, then someday down the road, have them replace the existing ansible package.
Latest upstream release: 2.10.0a2 Current version/release in rawhide: 2.9.9-3.fc33 URL: http://www.ansible.com Please consult the package updates policy before you issue an update to a stable branch: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Updates_Policy/ More information about the service that created this bug can be found at: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Upstream_release_monitoring Please keep in mind that with any upstream change, there may also be packaging changes that need to be made. Specifically, please remember that it is your responsibility to review the new version to ensure that the licensing is still correct and that no non-free or legally problematic items have been added upstream. Based on the information from anitya: https://release-monitoring.org/project/6097/
Latest upstream release: 2.10.0a3 Current version/release in rawhide: 2.9.9-3.fc33 URL: http://www.ansible.com Please consult the package updates policy before you issue an update to a stable branch: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Updates_Policy/ More information about the service that created this bug can be found at: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Upstream_release_monitoring Please keep in mind that with any upstream change, there may also be packaging changes that need to be made. Specifically, please remember that it is your responsibility to review the new version to ensure that the licensing is still correct and that no non-free or legally problematic items have been added upstream. Based on the information from anitya: https://release-monitoring.org/project/6097/
Latest upstream release: 2.10.0a4 Current version/release in rawhide: 2.9.9-3.fc33 URL: http://www.ansible.com Please consult the package updates policy before you issue an update to a stable branch: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Updates_Policy/ More information about the service that created this bug can be found at: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Upstream_release_monitoring Please keep in mind that with any upstream change, there may also be packaging changes that need to be made. Specifically, please remember that it is your responsibility to review the new version to ensure that the licensing is still correct and that no non-free or legally problematic items have been added upstream. Based on the information from anitya: https://release-monitoring.org/project/6097/
Latest upstream release: 2.10.0a5 Current version/release in rawhide: 2.9.9-3.fc33 URL: http://www.ansible.com Please consult the package updates policy before you issue an update to a stable branch: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Updates_Policy/ More information about the service that created this bug can be found at: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Upstream_release_monitoring Please keep in mind that with any upstream change, there may also be packaging changes that need to be made. Specifically, please remember that it is your responsibility to review the new version to ensure that the licensing is still correct and that no non-free or legally problematic items have been added upstream. Based on the information from anitya: https://release-monitoring.org/project/6097/
Latest upstream release: 2.10.0a6 Current version/release in rawhide: 2.9.9-3.fc33 URL: http://www.ansible.com Please consult the package updates policy before you issue an update to a stable branch: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Updates_Policy/ More information about the service that created this bug can be found at: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Upstream_release_monitoring Please keep in mind that with any upstream change, there may also be packaging changes that need to be made. Specifically, please remember that it is your responsibility to review the new version to ensure that the licensing is still correct and that no non-free or legally problematic items have been added upstream. Based on the information from anitya: https://release-monitoring.org/project/6097/
Latest upstream release: 2.10.0a7 Current version/release in rawhide: 2.9.9-3.fc33 URL: http://www.ansible.com Please consult the package updates policy before you issue an update to a stable branch: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Updates_Policy/ More information about the service that created this bug can be found at: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Upstream_release_monitoring Please keep in mind that with any upstream change, there may also be packaging changes that need to be made. Specifically, please remember that it is your responsibility to review the new version to ensure that the licensing is still correct and that no non-free or legally problematic items have been added upstream. Based on the information from anitya: https://release-monitoring.org/project/6097/
Latest upstream release: 2.10.0a8 Current version/release in rawhide: 2.9.9-3.fc33 URL: http://www.ansible.com Please consult the package updates policy before you issue an update to a stable branch: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Updates_Policy/ More information about the service that created this bug can be found at: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Upstream_release_monitoring Please keep in mind that with any upstream change, there may also be packaging changes that need to be made. Specifically, please remember that it is your responsibility to review the new version to ensure that the licensing is still correct and that no non-free or legally problematic items have been added upstream. Based on the information from anitya: https://release-monitoring.org/project/6097/
Latest upstream release: 2.10.0a9 Current version/release in rawhide: 2.9.9-3.fc33 URL: http://www.ansible.com Please consult the package updates policy before you issue an update to a stable branch: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Updates_Policy/ More information about the service that created this bug can be found at: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Upstream_release_monitoring Please keep in mind that with any upstream change, there may also be packaging changes that need to be made. Specifically, please remember that it is your responsibility to review the new version to ensure that the licensing is still correct and that no non-free or legally problematic items have been added upstream. Based on the information from anitya: https://release-monitoring.org/project/6097/
I'll first add a conversation I had with Toshio in Feb. (I hope he doesn't mind, it was in a public channel) Feb 15 10:34:07 <abadger1999> nirik: tibbs: https://gist.github.com/abadger/0b5b8a2b82049bc56cf753b1ccb4f2fc My initial hack at packaging an ansible collection. Feb 15 10:35:18 <fm-admin> pagure.issue.comment.added -- kevin commented on ticket releng#9262: "F-32 updates-t esting contains f-33 content" https://pagure.io/releng/issue/9262#comment-626628 Feb 15 10:35:19 <abadger1999> nirik: Since ansible-2.10 will push most of the modules and plugins out to collections, we'll have to think about how to package these before that goes live. Feb 15 10:38:44 <nirik> abadger1999: fun times. ;( Feb 15 10:39:11 <abadger1999> nirik: Yeah, ancient chinese curse times..... Feb 15 10:39:44 * nirik isn't sure how much time he has to work on it. we have a big datacenter move upcoming along with a bunch of other things. I can try tho Feb 15 10:44:06 <abadger1999> nirik: <nod> I'm currently getting infrastructure working for the transition to a collection-ized world. Then I'll probably be putting together the upstream rendition of the ansible + the collections most people will need. Feb 15 10:44:49 <abadger1999> nirik: Current timeline for 2.10 is very vague... (sometime in 2020)... so I'm not sure precisely how much time we'll have before 2.10 is out. Feb 15 10:45:36 <nirik> so, we get to the same issue all the language stacks get. ;) package lots of small package things. Feb 15 10:45:55 <abadger1999> Yep. exactly. Feb 15 10:46:26 <abadger1999> (And I'm not sure that ansible has learned the lessons that those language stacks have learned.... I see a lot of the same mistakes being made) Feb 15 10:46:29 <nirik> I'm not sure what the best approach is. Feb 15 10:46:47 <abadger1999> For instance, that the collections shipped on galaxy.ansible.com aren't really source :-/ Feb 15 10:46:48 <nirik> not texlive (thats what we have now) Feb 15 10:46:57 <nirik> fun Feb 15 10:47:01 <abadger1999> yeah. Feb 15 10:47:35 <nirik> so perhaps a tool like pyp2rpm / cpan2spec and lots of reviews.... Feb 15 10:47:46 <nirik> but then installing what you need will become fun Feb 15 10:47:51 <abadger1999> yeah. Feb 15 10:49:13 <abadger1999> The product managers (for the ansible red hat sells) envision a world where customers install collections purely through the ansible-galaxy command line client. (But I'll take bets on how long that vision will last when faced with actual customer and user usage ;-) Feb 15 10:51:04 <abadger1999> For 2.10, I believe that the upstream plan is that there will be an ansible-base package with ansible and a few important modules. There will be various community collections (I think < 10) containing the majority of modules that used to be in ansible. And there will be some small vendor supported collections which contain other modules that used to be in ansible and targetted a niche audience. Feb 15 10:51:06 <nirik> yeah Feb 15 10:51:26 <nirik> ok, thats not so bad there... Feb 15 10:51:44 <nirik> just ~10more things to package and install and deal with... Feb 15 10:51:49 <abadger1999> yeah. Feb 15 10:54:37 <abadger1999> I was thinking maybe an ansible meta package which deps on ansible-base and the ansible collections that. Feb 15 10:55:58 * nirik nods. Feb 15 10:56:47 <abadger1999> Part of that depends on how red hat decides to package ansible too... Feb 15 10:57:15 <abadger1999> It would be nice if users can choose to install ansible-base from the red hat repositories and the collections from epel. Feb 15 10:58:19 <abadger1999> relrod will be involved in that when he starts working on ansible so I hope to have more clarity once he starts. Feb 15 11:05:51 <nirik> cool. Feb 15 11:06:06 <nirik> I'm happy to help as I can, just not sure how much time I will have for it... ;) In the mean time, Igor has been adding macros and auto-deps for collections. See ( https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ansible/c/db3f8ce6dcb8907cf9e5e06ee399a18c6696887a?branch=master and https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ansible/c/250a3086bccf793b324576f7d995bcc3f51e6b78?branch=master for example) Adding him on CC here for input. Also adding Rick. So, my plan as I have it now is: * Package up ansible-base as a seperate package (keeping 'ansible' on 2.9.x) * Figure out macros and packaging for collections. * Package up community collections when they land as seperate packages. (This may need work with packaging comittee to get guidelines written/approved). * As soon as things stablize, change 'ansible' to a metapackage that pulls in 'ansible-base' and a small selection of collections roughly = to old 'ansible'. * profit I might try and work on the ansible-base packaging next week while I am on PTO, or I might decide thats too much like work and do it after next week. :) Or if you all convince me of another plan I am happy to listen.
(In reply to Kevin Fenzi from comment #19) > So, my plan as I have it now is: > > * Package up ansible-base as a seperate package (keeping 'ansible' on 2.9.x) > * Figure out macros and packaging for collections. > * Package up community collections when they land as seperate packages. > (This may need work with packaging comittee to get guidelines > written/approved). > * As soon as things stablize, change 'ansible' to a metapackage that pulls > in 'ansible-base' and a small selection of collections roughly = to old > 'ansible'. > * profit This sounds viable. There is an alternative where you keep all the collections in the ansible package instead of making it a metapackage but I'm not sure which is going to be better for you. And I don't know if that would count as bundling and what sort of hoops you'll have to go through because of that. (I kind of think yes, it is bundling but maybe Provides: bundled(ansible-collection-foo.bar) would be acceptable). My estimate of how many collections are in the ansible package in February was low :-( . There's about 70 collections in the latest ansible-2.10.0 alpha: https://github.com/ansible-community/ansible-build-data/blob/main/2.10/ansible-2.10.0a9.deps Of course, part of the reason for the split is that many of the plugins in collections are niche packages. So you may decide you don't have to package them all (although then the question of "what is ansible?" becomes even more pronounced :-/) The current plan for the future of the ansible.tar.gz is that it will gradually add more collections starting in 2.11. The idea is that the new ansible package is a distribution of content by people who all agree to follow certain common rules (similar to Fedora in that regard). That will probably make questions of how to scale (or truncate) the packaging of collections even more relevant as time goes on.
Latest upstream release: 2.10.0b1 Current version/release in rawhide: 2.9.12-1.fc33 URL: http://www.ansible.com Please consult the package updates policy before you issue an update to a stable branch: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Updates_Policy/ More information about the service that created this bug can be found at: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Upstream_release_monitoring Please keep in mind that with any upstream change, there may also be packaging changes that need to be made. Specifically, please remember that it is your responsibility to review the new version to ensure that the licensing is still correct and that no non-free or legally problematic items have been added upstream. Based on the information from anitya: https://release-monitoring.org/project/6097/
Latest upstream release: 2.10.0b2 Current version/release in rawhide: 2.9.13-1.fc34 URL: http://www.ansible.com Please consult the package updates policy before you issue an update to a stable branch: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Updates_Policy/ More information about the service that created this bug can be found at: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Upstream_release_monitoring Please keep in mind that with any upstream change, there may also be packaging changes that need to be made. Specifically, please remember that it is your responsibility to review the new version to ensure that the licensing is still correct and that no non-free or legally problematic items have been added upstream. Based on the information from anitya: https://release-monitoring.org/project/6097/
Just checking in here for a status update. Any public work in progress that we can test? Thanks.
Nope. :( I haven't had time, but I really hope to work on it this weekend...
ok. I finally worked on this. :) I've got an initial ansible-base-2.10.1 package. Currently it's obsoleting 'ansible' (they have file conflicts). It still needs some work however: * docs don't build. Fails with: make[1]: Entering directory '/builddir/build/BUILD/ansible-base-2.10.1/docs/docsite' ../../hacking/build-ansible.py collection-meta --template-file=../templates/collections_galaxy_meta.rst.j2 --output-dir=rst/dev_guide/ ../../lib/ansible/galaxy/data/collections_galaxy_meta.yml usage: build-ansible.py [-h] [--debug] {docs-build,document-config,document-keywords,file-deprecation-tickets,generate-man,porting-guide,release-announcement,update-intersphinx-cache} ... build-ansible.py: error: argument command: invalid choice: 'collection-meta' (choose from 'docs-build', 'document-config', 'document-keywords', 'file-deprecation-tickets', 'generate-man', 'porting-guide', 'release-announcement', 'update-intersphinx-cache') make[1]: Leaving directory '/builddir/build/BUILD/ansible-base-2.10.1/docs/docsite' make[1]: *** [Makefile:105: collections_meta] Error 2 make: *** [Makefile:269: webdocs] Error 2 * Some tests seem to fail: test/units/plugins/lookup/test_aws_ssm.py test/units/galaxy/test_collection_install.py test/units/module_utils/urls/test_prepare_multipart.py Otherwise it seems to work here in simple testing. I also see igor has made several collections already, so I adjusted the ansible-collection-ansible-posix package to use this ansible-base and it seems working also. Packages at: https://scrye.com/~kevin/fedora/ansible-base I'll try and work on the docs and tests and submit the package for review soon.
For the docs, I need to package up antsibull. Will work on that soon.
ok. Some progress. I have packaged up: python-perky python-async-pool (which are needed for) antsibull-changelog (which is needed for) antsibull However, I still can't seem to get docs to build: + make PYTHON=/usr/bin/python3 SPHINXBUILD=sphinx-build-3 webdocs fatal: not a git repository (or any of the parent directories): .git fatal: not a git repository (or any of the parent directories): .git fatal: not a git repository (or any of the parent directories): .git (cd docs/docsite/; CPUS=8 make docs) make[1]: Entering directory '/builddir/build/BUILD/ansible-base-2.10.2/docs/docsite' ../../hacking/build-ansible.py collection-meta --template-file=../templates/collections_galaxy_meta.rst.j2 --output- dir=rst/dev_guide/ ../../lib/ansible/galaxy/data/collections_galaxy_meta.yml ../../hacking/build-ansible.py document-config --template-file=../templates/config.rst.j2 --output-dir=rst/reference _appendices/ ../../lib/ansible/config/base.yml mkdir -p rst/cli ../../hacking/build-ansible.py generate-man --template-file=../templates/cli_rst.j2 --output-dir=rst/cli/ --output-f ormat rst ../../lib/ansible/cli/*.py ../../hacking/build-ansible.py document-keywords --template-dir=../templates --output-dir=rst/reference_appendices/ ./keyword_desc.yml else \ ../../hacking/build-ansible.py docs-build full -o rst ;\ fi Traceback (most recent call last): File "/builddir/build/BUILD/ansible-base-2.10.2/docs/docsite/../../hacking/build-ansible.py", line 103, in <module > main() File "/builddir/build/BUILD/ansible-base-2.10.2/docs/docsite/../../hacking/build-ansible.py", line 92, in main retval = command.main(args) File "/builddir/build/BUILD/ansible-base-2.10.2/hacking/build_library/build_ansible/command_plugins/docs_build.py" , line 161, in main return generate_full_docs(args) File "/builddir/build/BUILD/ansible-base-2.10.2/hacking/build_library/build_ansible/command_plugins/docs_build.py" , line 72, in generate_full_docs from antsibull.cli import antsibull_docs File "/usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/antsibull/cli/antsibull_docs.py", line 23, in <module> from .doc_commands import collection, current, devel, plugin, stable File "/usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/antsibull/cli/doc_commands/collection.py", line 9, in <module> from .stable import generate_docs_for_all_collections File "/usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/antsibull/cli/doc_commands/stable.py", line 28, in <module> from ...schemas.docs import DOCS_SCHEMAS File "/usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/antsibull/schemas/docs.py", line 12, in <module> from .callback import CallbackDocSchema, CallbackSchema File "/usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/antsibull/schemas/callback.py", line 10, in <module> from .plugin import InnerDocSchema, PluginExamplesSchema, PluginMetadataSchema, PluginReturnSchema File "/usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/antsibull/schemas/plugin.py", line 107, in <module> InnerReturnSchema.update_forward_refs() File "/usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/pydantic/main.py", line 677, in update_forward_refs update_field_forward_refs(f, globalns=globalns, localns=localns) File "/usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/pydantic/typing.py", line 233, in update_field_forward_refs field.type_ = evaluate_forwardref(field.type_, globalns, localns or None) File "/usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/pydantic/typing.py", line 50, in evaluate_forwardref return type_._evaluate(globalns, localns) TypeError: _evaluate() missing 1 required positional argument: 'recursive_guard' make[1]: Leaving directory '/builddir/build/BUILD/ansible-base-2.10.2/docs/docsite' make[1]: *** [Makefile:121: plugins] Error 1 make: *** [Makefile:269: webdocs] Error 2 Updated ansible-base to 2.10.2. I think I will submit it for review soon and once docs is sorted I can re-enable that.
I dug into this a bit. This is ultimately caused by a pydantic incompatibility with py3.9: https://github.com/samuelcolvin/pydantic/issues/1985 I'm not familiar enough with that code to know what a workaround would look like. :(
Wondering if that would then work with the python version from RHEL8 ?
Latest upstream release: 2.10.1 Current version/release in rawhide: 2.9.14-1.fc34 URL: http://www.ansible.com Please consult the package updates policy before you issue an update to a stable branch: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Updates_Policy/ More information about the service that created this bug can be found at: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Upstream_release_monitoring Please keep in mind that with any upstream change, there may also be packaging changes that need to be made. Specifically, please remember that it is your responsibility to review the new version to ensure that the licensing is still correct and that no non-free or legally problematic items have been added upstream. Based on the information from anitya: https://release-monitoring.org/project/6097/
*** Bug 1888625 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
(In reply to Fabian Arrotin from comment #31) > Wondering if that would then work with the python version from RHEL8 ? There are a couple issues with RHEL8: - python36-pytest is too old - python38 is missing some deps: No matching package to install: 'python38-mock' No matching package to install: 'python38-nose' No matching package to install: 'python38-pexpect' No matching package to install: 'python38-pytest-mock' No matching package to install: 'python38-pytest-xdist' No matching package to install: 'python38-pyvmomi' No matching package to install: 'python38-systemd'
ok, ansible-base review submitted. reviewers welcome! https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1893901
Latest upstream release: 2.10.2 Current version/release in rawhide: 2.9.15-1.fc34 URL: http://www.ansible.com Please consult the package updates policy before you issue an update to a stable branch: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Updates_Policy/ More information about the service that created this bug can be found at: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Upstream_release_monitoring Please keep in mind that with any upstream change, there may also be packaging changes that need to be made. Specifically, please remember that it is your responsibility to review the new version to ensure that the licensing is still correct and that no non-free or legally problematic items have been added upstream. Based on the information from anitya: https://release-monitoring.org/project/6097/
Latest upstream release: 2.10.3 Current version/release in rawhide: 2.9.15-1.fc34 URL: http://www.ansible.com Please consult the package updates policy before you issue an update to a stable branch: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Updates_Policy/ More information about the service that created this bug can be found at: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Upstream_release_monitoring Please keep in mind that with any upstream change, there may also be packaging changes that need to be made. Specifically, please remember that it is your responsibility to review the new version to ensure that the licensing is still correct and that no non-free or legally problematic items have been added upstream. Based on the information from anitya: https://release-monitoring.org/project/6097/
Latest upstream release: 2.10.4 Current version/release in rawhide: 2.9.15-1.fc34 URL: http://www.ansible.com Please consult the package updates policy before you issue an update to a stable branch: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Updates_Policy/ More information about the service that created this bug can be found at: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Upstream_release_monitoring Please keep in mind that with any upstream change, there may also be packaging changes that need to be made. Specifically, please remember that it is your responsibility to review the new version to ensure that the licensing is still correct and that no non-free or legally problematic items have been added upstream. Based on the information from anitya: https://release-monitoring.org/project/6097/
An HTTP error occurred downloading the package's new Source URLs: Getting https://releases.ansible.com/ansible/ansible-2.10.4.tar.gz to ./ansible-2.10.4.tar.gz
So, an update here (sorry I haven't updated yet). * ansible-base is reviewed and approved (yea!) but... * in 2.11 cycle, ansible-base is going to be renamed ansible-core. ;( * ansible 3.0.0 (ansible-base-2.10.x + ansible collections) is landing too late for f34. I am a bit on the fence about bothering to build ansible-base now, but I guess I could. I think I will submit a f35 change for ansible 4.0.0 and try and get everything lined up for that. I see igor has resubmitted some collections for review. It would sure be nice to have guidelines for these before we submitted a pile of them? In particular I would really like them to work with both ansible-2.9.x and ansible-base/core, which I don't think they currently do. (or reflect if the collection actually does work with those things). Since he's packaging particular collections, I guess that blows the idea of making a 'ansible-community' one building all of them? Can you chime in here Igor? :)
(In reply to Kevin Fenzi from comment #43) > So, an update here (sorry I haven't updated yet). > > * ansible-base is reviewed and approved (yea!) but... > * in 2.11 cycle, ansible-base is going to be renamed ansible-core. ;( > * ansible 3.0.0 (ansible-base-2.10.x + ansible collections) is landing too > late for f34. > > I am a bit on the fence about bothering to build ansible-base now, but I > guess I could. > > I think I will submit a f35 change for ansible 4.0.0 and try and get > everything lined up for that. > > I see igor has resubmitted some collections for review. It would sure be > nice to have guidelines for these before we submitted a pile of them? > In particular I would really like them to work with both ansible-2.9.x and > ansible-base/core, which I don't think they currently do. > (or reflect if the collection actually does work with those things). > Since he's packaging particular collections, I guess that blows the idea of > making a 'ansible-community' one building all of them? > Can you chime in here Igor? :) Guidelines would be nice, although I don't have time for that at all =( I think it is not possible to make collections to work with both because of the different file paths, but I haven't followed ansible development lately so I don't know if that's somehow changed. I think it is better to package each collection separately, as they are published on galaxy.ansible.com. Any objections?
(In reply to Igor Raits from comment #44) > (In reply to Kevin Fenzi from comment #43) > > So, an update here (sorry I haven't updated yet). > > > > * ansible-base is reviewed and approved (yea!) but... > > * in 2.11 cycle, ansible-base is going to be renamed ansible-core. ;( > > * ansible 3.0.0 (ansible-base-2.10.x + ansible collections) is landing too > > late for f34. > > > > I am a bit on the fence about bothering to build ansible-base now, but I > > guess I could. ansible-base also obsoletes ansible (classic) right now, so if I do build it in rawhide, I suppose it should just conflict with it to allow people to switch back and forth as desired. > > > > I think I will submit a f35 change for ansible 4.0.0 and try and get > > everything lined up for that. > > > > I see igor has resubmitted some collections for review. It would sure be > > nice to have guidelines for these before we submitted a pile of them? > > In particular I would really like them to work with both ansible-2.9.x and > > ansible-base/core, which I don't think they currently do. > > (or reflect if the collection actually does work with those things). > > Since he's packaging particular collections, I guess that blows the idea of > > making a 'ansible-community' one building all of them? > > Can you chime in here Igor? :) > > Guidelines would be nice, although I don't have time for that at all =( Well, without I fear we are going to get inconsistent collections packages. ;( > I think it is not possible to make collections to work with both because of > the different file paths, but I haven't followed ansible development lately > so I don't know if that's somehow changed. They work fine. There's no path changes I am aware of? I just (after modifying your collections generator to allow me to install it without ansible 2.9) installed the ansible.posix one and it worked fine with 2.10. I think we should get the generator to pull what version of ansible/ansible-base/ansible-core is needed for the collection and require only the lowest one. > I think it is better to package each collection separately, as they are > published on galaxy.ansible.com. > > Any objections? My thought/hope was to package the collections in "ansible" (ie, the ansible-community collections, ie: https://github.com/ansible-community/ansible-build-data/blob/main/2.10/ansible-2.10.4.deps ) as one package and then as we package particular modules that are in it for whatever reason, we drop them from there. Then for f35/4.0.0 we could drop ansible (classic) and have ansible-core + ansible-community-collections so we are at rough parity with ansible (classic).
(In reply to Kevin Fenzi from comment #45) > (In reply to Igor Raits from comment #44) > > (In reply to Kevin Fenzi from comment #43) > > > So, an update here (sorry I haven't updated yet). > > > > > > * ansible-base is reviewed and approved (yea!) but... > > > * in 2.11 cycle, ansible-base is going to be renamed ansible-core. ;( > > > * ansible 3.0.0 (ansible-base-2.10.x + ansible collections) is landing too > > > late for f34. > > > > > > I am a bit on the fence about bothering to build ansible-base now, but I > > > guess I could. > > ansible-base also obsoletes ansible (classic) right now, so if I do build it > in rawhide, I suppose it should just conflict with it to allow people to > switch back and forth as desired. > > > > > > > I think I will submit a f35 change for ansible 4.0.0 and try and get > > > everything lined up for that. > > > > > > I see igor has resubmitted some collections for review. It would sure be > > > nice to have guidelines for these before we submitted a pile of them? > > > In particular I would really like them to work with both ansible-2.9.x and > > > ansible-base/core, which I don't think they currently do. > > > (or reflect if the collection actually does work with those things). > > > Since he's packaging particular collections, I guess that blows the idea of > > > making a 'ansible-community' one building all of them? > > > Can you chime in here Igor? :) > > > > Guidelines would be nice, although I don't have time for that at all =( > > Well, without I fear we are going to get inconsistent collections packages. > ;( True, if you have some time - prepare PR to packaging-committee - shouldn't be very time consuming. > > I think it is not possible to make collections to work with both because of > > the different file paths, but I haven't followed ansible development lately > > so I don't know if that's somehow changed. > > They work fine. There's no path changes I am aware of? I just (after > modifying your collections generator to allow me to install it without > ansible 2.9) installed the ansible.posix one and it worked fine with 2.10. > > I think we should get the generator to pull what version of > ansible/ansible-base/ansible-core is needed for the collection and require > only the lowest one. Yeah, probably - as long as ansible keeps backwards compatibility. > > I think it is better to package each collection separately, as they are > > published on galaxy.ansible.com. > > > > Any objections? > > My thought/hope was to package the collections in "ansible" (ie, the > ansible-community collections, ie: > https://github.com/ansible-community/ansible-build-data/blob/main/2.10/ > ansible-2.10.4.deps ) as one package and then as we package particular > modules that are in it for whatever reason, we drop them from there. Problem with this is that it is hard to manage - either we pull all relevant packages with same versions (and don't get bugfixes) or we manually cherry-pick versions and then there is already no point in having one package containing hundreds of collections. > Then for f35/4.0.0 we could drop ansible (classic) and have ansible-core + > ansible-community-collections so we are at rough parity with ansible > (classic). I think having ansible-community-collections as a metapackage makes perfect sense, but building all those collections separately..
> True, if you have some time - prepare PR to packaging-committee - shouldn't be very time consuming. I'll try, not sure how slammed I will be when I get back in next week. ;( > Yeah, probably - as long as ansible keeps backwards compatibility. yep. For now at least, we can adjust later if needed. > Problem with this is that it is hard to manage - > either we pull all relevant packages with same versions > (and don't get bugfixes) or we manually cherry-pick versions > and then there is already no point in having one package containing hundreds of collections. Well, IMHO, we package exactly whats in that bundle. If we want a different version, we package it seperately and drop it from the bundle. > I think having ansible-community-collections as a metapackage makes perfect sense, but building all those collections separately.. well, if we start now with the bundle, over time we seperate out collections and in the end, yes, it's just a metapackage. :)
Latest upstream release: 2.10.5 Current version/release in rawhide: 2.9.16-1.fc34 URL: http://www.ansible.com Please consult the package updates policy before you issue an update to a stable branch: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Updates_Policy/ More information about the service that created this bug can be found at: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Upstream_release_monitoring Please keep in mind that with any upstream change, there may also be packaging changes that need to be made. Specifically, please remember that it is your responsibility to review the new version to ensure that the licensing is still correct and that no non-free or legally problematic items have been added upstream. Based on the information from anitya: https://release-monitoring.org/project/6097/
An HTTP error occurred downloading the package's new Source URLs: Getting https://releases.ansible.com/ansible/ansible-2.10.5.tar.gz to ./ansible-2.10.5.tar.gz
ok, I imported ansible-base to rawhide. Folks can now try it out there if they like. Note that it conflicts with ansible (classic) and thus you need to do a 'dnf install ansible-base --allow-erasing' to switch between the two. All the ansible-collection-* packages have been updated to work with either ansible (classic) and ansible-base. For f35, I understand ansible-base is going to become ansible-core. :( So, will get that added once the name changes upstream.