On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 1:59 PM Khetan, Sharad <sharad.khetan@intel.com>
wrote:

> 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.
>
>
Actually great for debugging as well.

sri

Thanks,
> -Sharad
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: openbmc <openbmc-bounces+sharad.khetan=intel.com@lists.ozlabs.org>
> On Behalf Of Brad Bishop
> Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2020 1:29 PM
> To: openbmc@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
>