[PR #2259/2e09b533 backport][stable-2.18] use name instead of source for installing collection dir requirements #2287
+2
−2
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
![patchback[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/21488?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
oraNod
approved these changes
Dec 11, 2024
oraNod
deleted the
patchback/backports/stable-2.18/2e09b533cea028e717c2ce3e05f00cf7aee23a0b/pr-2259
branch
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This is a backport of PR #2259 as merged into devel (2e09b53).
I should have caught this before approving the PR that added these examples.
When the dependency resolver was added to ansible-galaxy in 2.12, it inadvertently overloaded the
sourcecollection requirement field, which was previously only able to be a URL to a galaxy server. Now it is sort of an alias tonamein some situations, and it's a bug because we had specifically discussed not unifying rolesrcvs collectionsourcefor requirements, because although it's unfortunate that they're similarly named but completely different features (one is a URL to a role, the other is a URL galaxy server), it was outside of the scope of that PR (and at the time of discussion, I was under the impression we would want to make the role syntax more like collections though - not the other way around).