Re: Host-side tools

[William Kennington <wak@google.com>]

As long as it's possible to build the host side tooling without
building any of the BMC side tooling and vice versa it sounds fine to
me.

On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 10:51 AM Brad Bishop
<bradleyb@fuzziesquirrel.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 08:03:17AM -0800, Patrick Venture wrote:
> >Brad,
> >
> >It's my understanding that host-side tools that cooperate with bmc-side
> >tools should be in the same repo,
>
> Is this something I said at some point?  Where is this coming from?
>
> >hence why the host-side blobs stuff is in phosphor-ipmi-flash.
> >However, if I add any dependencies to the configuration for the
> >BMC-side, those get in the way of configuring for the host-side.  Would
> >it not make sense to sometimes have it split?  And if so, I would like
> >to propose creating two repos, a blobs library host-side, and a flash
> >tool host-side repo, so those can be neatly split and not have anything
> >in their configuration file that's really bmc-side specific, like
> >ipmid, or phosphor-dbus-interface, or something.
>
> I can make a repo if you would like.  Just let me know what you would
> like it called.
>
> That said, I think you can also probably do this in the same repo, if
> you wanted, by having different build targets - it might not make any
> sense to try and build both applications with a single invocation of
> configure - as you point out, they are being "configured" for vastly
> different runtime environments.