Opt-Out vs Opt-In

[Brad Bishop]

> On Oct 10, 2018, at 3:33 PM, Patrick Venture <venture at google.com> wrote:
> 
> I have rsyslog running on my image.  I have no remote logging servers
> for this... I have no desire for this daemon to run or take up space.
> In general, I turn off about a dozen IMAGE_FEATURES for my builds.
> Stuff that I don't have set up, or just don't need.  Every time I
> rebase I have to build and look for new things to remove.
> 
> Recently in the security group we've been discussing the opt-out vs
> opt-in model for packages and configurations.

Isn’t opt-in just core-image-minimal?  If that is what you want, then
just use that as the basis for an image recipe in your layer.

My take is that the image recipe provided in the phosphor layer is
the reference/full-function image recipe and as such should use as much
software provided by the project as possible (for ci/testing/validation
purposes).

New/additional image recipes in phosphor could make sense if they were
re-usable… something like phosphor-no-nic-image.  But the full-function
one can’t go away in favor of something with less functionality out of
the box.

> 
> I want to take the community's temperature on this.
> 
> Patrick