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-0008.sig>