tiny package --

[Brad Bishop]

> On Sep 8, 2018, at 12:01 PM, Patrick Venture <venture at google.com> wrote:
> 
> Brad;
> 
> I was looking at publishing a single-header file from a package
> containing only that header file.  In this case, "oemgoogle.hpp" into
> the same place that phosphor-host-ipmid installs its headers so that
> any google-ipmi-* packages could store their OEM numbers in one file
> (upstream).
> 
> Downstream we store that file in our phosphor-host-ipmid mirror.
> 
> The advice I seek is -- it doesn't seem worth creating a separate
> repository for one file, but I know it's a frowned upon practice to
> store code in the bitbake repository -- but in this case, I feel like
> it may be appropriate.  Does that make sense?

Obviously it will work just fine but I probably wouldn’t allow it in
the IBM or phosphor layers, out of fear of it being used as a counter
example or justification for a future change that isn’t quite so harmless.
But it is truly _your_ layer, so you can do whatever you want.

> 
> I'm thinking:
> meta-google/recipes-google/ipmi/google-ipmi-header.bb
> meta-google/recipes-google/ipmi/google-ipmi-header/configure.ac
> meta-google/recipes-google/ipmi/google-ipmi-header/Makefile.am
> meta-google/recipes-google/ipmi/google-ipmi-header/oemgoogle.hpp
> 
> Patrick

Why is the number hardcoded at all?  Could it be a configure option or
command line option?

If those don’t work, as a fall-back can we just put the header in the
upstream phosphor-host-ipmid repository as you’ve done downstream?

My two cents is that one of these three options would be simpler.

-brad