Request new repo for IBM-specific code: ibm-acf

Andrew Jeffery andrew at
Mon May 3 09:46:08 AEST 2021

On Sat, 1 May 2021, at 15:00, Joseph Reynolds wrote:
> On 4/30/21 8:29 AM, Patrick Williams wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 29, 2021 at 04:09:58PM -0500, Joseph Reynolds wrote:
> >   
> >> So ... does the GitHub OpenBMC organization host vendor specific repos
> >> (perhaps, or does the source code go
> >> somewhere else (such as IBM's public fork in
> >>
> > I'm strongly opposed to dumping-ground repositories like
> > "<company>-misc".  We approved exactly one of those and the rationale we
> > were given was they had a bunch of existing code they were going to work
> > at getting upstreamed, but wanted a place to be able to interact with
> > their vendors in the interrim.  We should not be having *new* code going
> > into that or any other "misc" repository.
> >
> > We have generally not wanted OpenBMC-oriented code in non-openbmc-org
> > repositories that are then picked up by openbmc/openbmc recipes.  If you
> > have a generally applicable library that isn't tied to openbmc in any
> > way, or especially one that already has good usage outside of openbmc,
> > then another github org seems reasonable.  That isn't what you have
> > here.
> >
> > It sounds like you have a good definition here of what you want to do,
> > so I'm fine with `openbmc/pam-ibm-acf`.  I don't see any reason we
> > cannot host `openbmc/<company>-<feature>` repositories for things which
> > are company specific, as long as those repositories are only picked up
> > by your meta-<company> layer.
> Patrick,
> Thanks.  That works for me.  I propose a new repo ibm-acf which will 
> have 4 related parts:
> 1. The Linux-PAM pam_ibmacf module (targeted to run on the BMC)
> 2. A tool to create and read ACF files (targeted to run on the build host)
> 3. Common source library for use by the two items above and by the BMC's 
> function to upload & validate an ACF file.
> 4. Absolutely minimal test cases and documentation.

What? Why? I don't have much context, but I think this needs more justification.


More information about the openbmc mailing list