interest in a minimal image recipe

[Khetan, Sharad]

Hi Brad,

+1

I like the idea. We have a increasing number of repos and it will be good to have a model where users can pick the features/repos they want. I guess it will make OpenBMC offer a microservices model 😊. The challenge will of course be finding that right base / minimum configuration. That may change depending on device, usage, architecture.
It’s a good idea to start with the empty list and add from there.

Thanks,
-Sharad


-----Original Message-----
From: openbmc <openbmc-bounces+sharad.khetan=intel.com at lists.ozlabs.org> On Behalf Of Brad Bishop
Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2020 1:29 PM
To: openbmc at lists.ozlabs.org
Subject: interest in a minimal image recipe

I've heard a handful of times that meta-phosphor users often have to remove the latest feature added by default to obmc-phosphor-image.

I have an RFC for an empty image that these users could bbappend and opt-in to specific image features instead of having to repeatedly opt-out.

If you like the opt-in approach, please drop a +1 and/or review my patch:

https://gerrit.openbmc-project.xyz/c/openbmc/meta-phosphor/+/36516

I bring this up now because I, and others have been adding new image features to obmc-phosphor-image (e.g. turned on by default), and I would like to start a discussion about what it means for an application to be in the OpenBMC github organization.  I would propose that it means it is enabled and turned on by default in obmc-phosphor-image.

Looking forward to your thoughts.

-brad