-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 31
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Provide ansible Debian/Ubuntu package for 2.10 in Ansible PPA #202
Comments
Acknowledged. I need to get that built and write down the steps to do it. Then hopefully write a github action for it before we get to the next release. |
Is there any progress on this? |
I've been working on it for the past few days. Debian packaging is not very easy, unfortunately. I will hopefully know enough to get this done for the next Ansible release (need to include the Debian control files in the tarball which wasn't done for the past few releases). |
When you get around to puting this up you should also do a signed release file as apt is really pushing on this and will eventually not allow installs with out it. |
dericcrago is working on getting this working. |
@tmasterson Do you have a link that you can give for how to integrate a signed release file with Ubuntu's PPAs? I imagine that both the ansible and ansible-core packages will need to look into using that. (@relrod) |
It appears that you get the no signed release error when there is no
package for your release of Ubuntu which in my case if Focal. As long as
you have signed the files in your package (in particular the changes file
using debuild -S -sa) it should be signed correctly. It appears that
there is no package for focal shen I look at the ppa site so that is
likely a part of my issue though it may also be that it is unsigned. I
have not worked a lot on launchpad.net and don't have a ppa so I can't
give much more than that.
…On Mon, 25 Jan 2021, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
@tmasterson Do you have a link that you can give for how to integrate a signed release file with Ubuntu's PPAs? I imagine that both the ansible and ansible-core
packages will need to look into using that. ***@***.***)
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or
unsubscribe.[AAYH5V4UOPF7EUSJJ6BEZNLS3W3Q5A5CNFSM4SHBDMW2YY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGOFW37AIA.gif]
|
any progress on this? still not seeing any installable 2.10.x in PPA |
Hi @krystian-panek-wttech (and @perlun / @CaptainStealthy), thanks for asking. We are currently in the testing / verification phase, but if you would like to help us test please see ansible-community/ppa#1. We've got Ansible 2.10.7 & 3.1.0 (soon to be 3.2.0) for Ubuntu (18.04, 20.04, 20.10) in our testing PPAs. |
Red Hat based repos have the same problem, exacerbated by the presence of the older ansible-2.9.x packages. |
@dericcrago I think this has been resolved, can we close this? |
Judging from the packages in the PPA with Ansible 2.11, I'd say this looks good. While pip already provides ansible-core 2.12, I'm not sure which releases you want to support there given the requirement for a newer Python. |
Sure. For future reference, the various [un]versioned PPAs can be found here: https://launchpad.net/~ansible with a running latest summary here: ansible-community/ppa#1 |
Ansible Ubuntu PPA does not include
ansible
package for 2.10ansible-base
(created from https://github.com/ansible/ansible/) exists for 2.10, but the availableansible
packages only provides Ansible 2.9.14.According to this page, as a regular end-user of Ansible I want the
ansible
package which includes the collections which were previously included inansible
2.9. (Please let me know if this assumption is incorrect.)It's not a huge problem, since it's possible to install
ansible
usingpip3
instead. But it seems like it would make sense to smoothen out the upgrade path for people who (like me) are coming from Ansible 2.9, who might get a bit confused about the lack of this (Debian/Ubuntu) package.I saw #98 and perhaps resolving that would be one step towards getting this resolved. (Of course, it could also be possible to build these packages locally as a temporary measure but that's clearly an anti-pattern that we all know we should avoid whenever possible...)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: