Re: End Of Life Tag in spdx #spdx
> Current information inside SPDX documents is largely static […]
> This would make SPDX a lot more cumbersome, as not only do the documents need to be generated, but they also need to be updated all the time to avoid falling out of sync
I have no opinion on end-of-life either way, but wouldn’t the same argument apply to security vulnerabilities?
From: spdx@... <spdx@...> On Behalf Of Armijn Hemel - Tjaldur Software Governance Solutions
Sent: 19 May 2022 11:21
Subject: Re: [spdx] End Of Life Tag in spdx #spdx
I would suggest to keep this information "out of band" and not inside SPDX documents. Current information inside SPDX documents is largely static: package, license, checksum, and so on. Of course there could have been errors that need to be fixed, but overall these fields are static.
EOL information, commercial status and support status on the other hand are much more dynamic. Sometimes packages are supported for only a few hours, sometimes for decades. Very often it is also not clear when a package is EOL or supported as many authors/maintainers do not announce it. The support is sometimes also not done by the author/maintainers, but by an external entity (for example: enterprise grade Linux distributions). Does this mean it is supported, or only supported for people willing to pay for it, or .... ? It is simply not clear and it adds a lot of fuzziness.
This would make SPDX a lot more cumbersome, as not only do the documents need to be generated, but they also need to be updated all the time to avoid falling out of sync. It also mixes syntax and semantics, which is never a good idea.
Armijn Hemel, MSc
Tjaldur Software Governance Solutions