interest in a minimal image recipe

[Ed Tanous]

On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 10:52 AM Brad Bishop
<bradleyb at fuzziesquirrel.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 08:53:26AM -0700, Ed Tanous wrote:
> >On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 5:55 AM Brad Bishop <bradleyb at fuzziesquirrel.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> In what way does EM require intel-ipmi-oem?  I am using EM without
> >> intel-ipmi-oem without (I thought anyway) issue.
> >
> >You're running Entity Manager, without intel-ipmi-oem, and you can run
> >a successful "ipmitool sensor list" or "ipmitool fru print" command,
> >and have it return the entity manager/dbus-sensors/FruDevice results?
>
> Ah, now I understand.  No, I can't do that.  But I don't need to because
> the default IPMI handler implementations in phosphor-host-ipmid work for
> me (the YAML based ones), and those don't need entity-manager.  I'm
> using entity-manager for other reasons.

That makes a lot more sense now.

>
> As an aside - I think a majority are using the intel-ipmi-oem handlers
> now so I'd support moving those into phosphor-host-ipmid and using them
> as the defaults.  But that must not be easy, otherwise Intel would have
> just done that rather than forking the handlers in intel-ipmi-oem in the
> first place.

Yep, although I think it's a solvable problem to make it an
image/distro feature.

>
> But in any case, intel-ipmi-oem requires entity-manager, not the other
> way around right?

Good point.  I never thought of it that way, but you're right.

>  The "feature" being selected here is the Intel IPMI
> handler forks, and that would simply depend on entity-manager.  A
> strawman:
>
> obmc-phosphor-image.bbclass:
> FEATURE_PACKAGES_intel-ipmi-handler-forks = "packagegroup-intel-ipmi-handler-forks"
>
> packagegroup-obmc-apps.bb:
> RDEPENDS_packagegroup-obmc-apps-intel-ipmi-handler-forks = "intel-ipmi-oem"
>
> intel-ipmi-oem.bb:
> RDEPENDS_${PN} = "entity-manager"
>
> One prerequisite to this is that the intel-ipmi-oem recipe would need to
> move to meta-phosphor.  Perhaps its time for the repo to be renamed into
> something else.

Yep. That looks like what I would expect.

>
> >In my understanding, this shouldn't work, and we've had many reports
> >of "I enabled entity manager, and my sensors don't show up in IPMI".
> I don't think the answer to "how do I enable IPMI sensors" was ever
> "enable entity manager" was it?  To enable IPMI, you have always needed
> to enable either the original YAML based handlers or the intel-ipmi-oem
> forks.

That's a really good point.  We really ought to model features as
outbound interfaces that drive internal RDEPENDS.  Ideally nobody
would be appending entity-manager, they would be appending
intel-ipmi-oem (or whatever name we pick for it in the future), which
would have the correct dependencies on entity-manager.   I like it.