When building OpenBMC . . . ?

[Bruce Mitchell]

Thanks again Patrick, I see your point and will that up with our team as well.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Patrick Williams [mailto:patrick at stwcx.xyz]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 1, 2020 09:20
> To: Ed Tanous
> Cc: Bruce Mitchell; openbmc at lists.ozlabs.org
> Subject: Re: When building OpenBMC . . . ?
> 
> On Tue, Sep 01, 2020 at 09:09:33AM -0700, Ed Tanous wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 5:26 AM Patrick Williams <patrick at stwcx.xyz>
> wrote:
> > > On Sun, Aug 30, 2020 at 10:02:41PM +0000, Bruce Mitchell wrote:
> > >
> > > #2 should go into either meta-facebook (or the underlying code
> > > repository where the fix is needed).  These will be common for any
> >
> > +1
> >
> > Could we also make the statement that as a project, we will enable
> > every platform feature we are able to for every platform by default,
> > and if a company wants to specifically disable some features for their
> > use because they haven't vetted them, they should do that in a
> > specific distro?  Said another way, the "default" for every machine
> > should be every feature enabled, as that's what helps users and
> > developers the most.
> 
> I think this is where we get some conflict between, for lack of better
> words, commercial and hyperscale philosphies.  We may make a decision
> that we don't want net-ipmi in our datacenter, for security reasons, so
> we have it disabled in our meta-facebook layer.  Yes, we could disable it
> dynamically like a customer of a commercial vendor might do, but it is
> simpler to not even have the code in the image.
> 
> Today we've combined machine definition and image definition into a
> single meta-layer across the board.  This is probably reasonable for a
> single vendor who designs their own machine in-house, but is less
> reasonable for cases like Facebook where we do our work within OCP
> and others can order the servers we've designed from various ODMs.
> 
> --
> Patrick Williams