Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

package_info should have a field for the vendor sbom #96

Open
aiuto opened this issue May 18, 2023 · 1 comment
Open

package_info should have a field for the vendor sbom #96

aiuto opened this issue May 18, 2023 · 1 comment
Assignees

Comments

@aiuto
Copy link
Collaborator

aiuto commented May 18, 2023

Some packages include an SBOM produced by publisher.
We should be able to represent that in package_info

@aiuto aiuto self-assigned this May 18, 2023
@billie-alsup
Copy link

billie-alsup commented Nov 3, 2023

Has there been any thought given to a design here? Should it be part of package_info, or a new rule? I was thinking of a new package_sbom rule for example, and it could take sbom filename(s), and perhaps an optional format specifier (for example, the various syft output formats perhaps?). These could then be used like package_info, in that they are applied to a set of targets via either package rule's default_applicable_licenses, or through an explicit entry in a target's applicable_license attribute. This could then be gathered when traversing the targets and then somehow (tbd) integrated into the final output. If that final output is spdx, then perhaps an spdx input would be an externalRefs. Or perhaps it could be integrated directly into the final output as an option.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants