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

[Andrew Jeffery]

On Mon, 3 May 2021, at 09:16, Andrew Jeffery wrote:
> 
> 
> 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 github.com/openbmc/ibm-misc), or does the source code go
> > >> somewhere else (such as IBM's public fork in
> > >> github.com/ibm-openbmc/pam-ibm-acf)?
> > > 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.

To clarify, "absolutely minimal test cases and documentation" is what I 
what I think needs more justification.

Andrew