Hi all,

I have two questions regarding the latest spec from your home
page. Thanks in advance for the time and consideration.

1.) Page 10 states that "A package can contain subpackages". How would
those be added to the description, they do not seem to be part of the
data model as shown on pg 35.

Supporting subpackages with a full set of metadata seems to be a good
approach to support descriptions of a full system image.

2.) Page 11/12: While package verification code is optional (most
likely to be used when SPDX is not part of the src-archive), the
verification code is mandatory.

While discussing this with a colleague we could not quite figure out
why this is the case or whether this should be better one or the other
(i.e. it is mandatory to have one of the two within one description).


I would be glad to get some thoughts on this.

Thx,
Mario

--
Mario Tokarz
BMW Car IT GmbH

Hi all,

On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 11:34:10PM +0200 , Mario Tokarz wrote:

Hi all,

I have two questions regarding the latest spec from your home
page. Thanks in advance for the time and consideration.

1.) Page 10 states that "A package can contain subpackages". How would
those be added to the description, they do not seem to be part of the
data model as shown on pg 35.

I think that this would relate to Bug 818 - is this correct? If so,
the feature would not be part of release 1.0?

I would need to reread the spec, but if so the formulation could maybe
be improved there.

Supporting subpackages with a full set of metadata seems to be a good
approach to support descriptions of a full system image.

Thx,
Mario



--
BMW Car IT GmbH
http://www.bmw-carit.de

On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 6:18 AM, Mario Tokarz <mario@...> wrote:

Hi all,

On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 11:34:10PM +0200 , Mario Tokarz wrote:

Hi all,

I have two questions regarding the latest spec from your home
page. Thanks in advance for the time and consideration.

1.) Page 10 states that "A package can contain subpackages". How would
those be added to the description, they do not seem to be part of the
data model as shown on pg 35.

I think that this would relate to Bug 818 - is this correct? If so,
the feature would not be part of release 1.0?

Your are correct. That feature is not planned for this release.

I would need to reread the spec, but if so the formulation could maybe
be improved there.

I think that would be an excellent approach handling this. Any
suggestions for a new formulation would be greatly appreciated.

Peter
openlogic.com