Re: When building OpenBMC . . . ?

[Patrick Williams <patrick@stwcx.xyz>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1595 bytes --]

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@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

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]