[CentOS-devel] [Config Management SIG] delivering Ansible

Le lundi 14 novembre 2016 à 14:55 +0100, François Cami a écrit :
> On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 2:40 PM, Michael Scherer <mscherer at redhat.com> wrote:
> > Le samedi 12 novembre 2016 à 18:12 +0100, François Cami a écrit :
> >> On Sat, Nov 12, 2016 at 6:02 PM, David Moreau Simard <dms at redhat.com> wrote:
> >> > On Sat, Nov 12, 2016 at 11:37 AM, François Cami <fcami at fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> >> >> Version-wise, I plan to deliver 1.9/2.0/2.1/2.2 in separate
> >> >> repositories managed by separate centos-release-ansible-{19,20,21,22}
> >> >> RPMs. Any issue during the build and test phases will be reported here
> >> >> or on IRC. Persistent issues will be posted to the wiki.
> >> >
> >> > Does upstream Ansible even support as far back as 1.9.x and 2.0.x ?
> >>
> >> The answer is quite probably "no".
> >
> > I brought that issue with the other developers of Ansible.
> > There is plan to remove it from epel (1.9), and I suspect the last
> > update will be to fix CVE-2016-8628, then it will likely be declared
> > officially EOL.
> >
> >> > Are you going to be shipping what are basically EOL and
> >> > unsupported/unmaintained versions ?
> >>
> >> Yes.
> >> There will be a note in the wiki making that clear.
> >> Tbh I have no other choice as ceph upstream repeatedly told me the
> >> ceph-ansible playbook is only validated against ansible-1.9 for now.
> >
> > Porting the software to 2.X is a option (albeit I guess not the favored
> > one)
> >
> > While there isn't much serious security issue with Ansible[1], relying
> > on obsoletes version is bad. If some playbooks can't be ported to 2.X or
> > if there is no will or timeline to that to happen, it is effectively not
> > maintained to my eyes.
> 
> See below :)
> 
> To clarify: while I plan to make 1.9 available, it is best thought as
> a historical effort like http://vault.centos.org/ and our users will
> be encouraged to use the future ansible2 repository.
> 
> >> One of the goals of the ansible effort is to test that particular
> >> playbook against different ansible versions and fix the bugs in the
> >> playbook.
> >> I'd rather start from a known-working environment than from a broken
> >> one to do so.
> >
> > I think we need to have a specific page that outline the timeline of
> > support, but that would be much easier if we knew the upstream policy,
> > which I plan to ask to be clarified upstream.
> 
> Awesome, thank you!

So after asking and not getting satisfying answer, and after searching
again if I didn't miss something, I opened:
https://github.com/ansible/community/issues/143

Even if the situation with ansible-ceph is less dire than what I
understood (sorry if I did sounded too harsh), the problem will repeat
itself for others versions and others projects, so the document is
really needed. 

I really wonder if one solution couldn't also to deliver each installer
as a container, bundling a specific version of ansible for that
installer to be run.
-- 
Michael Scherer
Sysadmin, Community Infrastructure and Platform, OSAS


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/attachments/20161115/1e7453f6/attachment-0004.sig>