Thoughts about converting to a ansible-galaxy collection?

[propyless]

Hello!

So I was wondering if theres any interest to convert the role to a role in a collection instead?

[Jakuje]

We are shipping this as part of "linux system roles" collection in the galaxy:

https://galaxy.ansible.com/fedora/linux_system_roles

Its a question if it is worth converting this role into a separate collection, but it should not be that hard if it would be needed.

[mattwillsher]

What are the benefits of a seperate collection?

[rehanone]

What are the benefits of a seperate collection?

The name itself is reason enough. the collection is currently called fedora.linux_system_roles. Since I have no use for fedora as a server. that is the last place anyone would go looking for an sshd role to use on Debian/Ubuntu. It took me a day to finally find this issue and get the collection downloaded. I would agree with @propyless to move this role into a separate collection and maybe update the documentation on how to use it.

[richm]

What are the benefits of a seperate collection?

The name itself is reason enough. the collection is currently called fedora.linux_system_roles. Since I have no use for fedora as a server.

I agree that the name is misleading. The role/collection works on a wide variety of platforms, not only Fedora.

that is the last place anyone would go looking for an sshd role to use on Debian/Ubuntu. It took me a day to finally find this issue and get the collection downloaded. I would agree with @propyless to move this role into a separate collection and maybe update the documentation on how to use it.

Yes, there could be a collection willshershsytems.ansible_sshd which contains only the role sshd. We will still keep the role in fedora.linux_system_roles because we need it there, but there could be multiple collections which provide this role.

[jose-d]

wouldn't be good to mention fedora.linux_system_roles collection somehow at the main Readme.md ? As I read the note from @rehanone above, I just quickly refactored my tooling to include whole fedora.linux_system_roles - I had no clue that this role is part of this collection.

[richm]

wouldn't be good to mention fedora.linux_system_roles collection somehow at the main Readme.md ?

Maybe? The role is provided as a legacy role in the legacy role format - how is it supposed to know if other collections include it?

I get it - it is frustrating when you want to/must use collections and cannot use the legacy role format, but that isn't the "fault" of the ansible-sshd role being provided in the legacy role format.

If there is a huge demand to provide a collection instead of the legacy role format, the maintainers of the role (or anyone else, really) can provide such a collection.

As I read the note from @rehanone above, I just quickly refactored my tooling to include whole fedora.linux_system_roles - I had no clue that this role is part of this collection.

Or you can use the legacy role format (unless you must use a collection, or just really don't want to use the legacy role format).

[jose-d]

Or you can use the legacy role format (unless you must use a collection, or just really don't want to use the legacy role format).

I suspect people (including myself) are pushed in direction of using collections instead simple roles because Ansible executive environments, used by AWX (built by ansible-builder) don't support adding individual roles easily/natively..

[rehanone]

Yes, there could be a collection willshershsytems.ansible_sshd which contains only the role sshd. We will still keep the role in fedora.linux_system_roles because we need it there, but there could be multiple collections which provide this role.

I think is the best outcome. It will allow legacy users to continue using fedora.linux_system_roles and for new users give a clean collection to work with.