galaxy 2.0 import question

Archives Ansible Project
1

Hey folks,

I was testing the new galaxy 2.0 import process from the p.o.v. of a github organization and had a question.

Right now it imports as “MyOrganization.some-twisted-rolename”

I was curious if there might be a way to make that name less…dunno how to phrase this other than “internal”…so that if someone were going to install it they would get a “nice” role name without renaming the github repository to something that would make all the other developers in the organization tilt their heads and say “what?”

For example, to make it “pretty” (using a contrived example) if I were the Redhat organization with a role in github called ansible-jboss, then galaxy would make it available as “Redhat.ansible-jboss” when I actually just want it to be available as “Redhat.jboss”. But to rename the repo in github to be just “jboss” would make existing jboss developers think that the jboss source was in that directory instead of ansible modules.

Hope that explanation was clear.

Any help/ideas appreciated. Maybe I just missed something obvious in the UI or release notes.

Thanks,
tim

2

The answer right now is "no, you can't". But that's one of the
reasons we're doing an early beta here: to get feedback on issues like
this.

This is one of those questions we weighed quite a bit. In the end, we
decided that a tight and transparent linkage to Github was the right
way to go, and the ability to alias roles was less important, so we
removed the aliasing ability.

We expect that this will mean a lot of new roles with "ansible" in the
name -- and I'm okay with that. In the past, we prohibited this; we
basically remapped these role names for you. In your example, had you
tried to import "redhat.ansible-jboss", we would have suggested
"redhat.jboss" as your role name.

I'm happy to hear other opinions on this. Is the ability to make the
role name "pretty" important?

--g

3

Thanks for the info Greg.

I’m really kind of impartial to the name, but thought I would ask anyway due to my first impressions.

I think adding an “ansible” prefix in my case would be sufficient.

Thanks!
tim