Re: [OE-core] [PATCH 0/3] SPDX: Add annotations to relationship
On 11/16/21 8:39 AM, Saul Wold wrote: On 11/15/21 2:44 PM, Paul Eggleton wrote: On Tuesday, 9 November 2021 08:01:38 NZDT Saul Wold wrote: On 11/4/21 2:20 PM, Joshua Watt wrote: On 11/4/21 3:50 PM, Richard Purdie wrote: On Thu, 2021-11-04 at 15:45 -0500, Joshua Watt wrote: On 11/4/21 3:43 PM, Richard Purdie wrote: On Thu, 2021-11-04 at 20:00 +, Jose Quaresma wrote: Richard Purdie escreveu no dia quinta, 28/10/2021 à(s) 21:58: On Thu, 2021-10-28 at 08:47 -1000, Steve Sakoman wrote: On Tue, Oct 26, 2021 at 10:41 PM Jose Quaresma wrote: Hi all, There are any plans or is it possible to backport the SBOM/SPDX to the dunfell branch? I'm going to yield to Saul as to whether he thinks this is desirable/possible or not. The packagedata changes are pretty invasive unfortunately and likely not something you're going to want in dunfell sadly. Thanks for the clarification. I have been thinking a bit more about this. I did wonder if we should consider a mixin layer of some kind for it that could work with dunfell? We could host it, it is just a question of writing the mixin layer and maintaining it. I don't think it's going to be possible with a pure mixin layer, since it relies on the extended package data? I suspect that could perhaps be patched in through a layer though? You might choose to drop the compression piece or do it differently for the backport? I'm not sure if a layer could hook in well enough to get the data needed... maybe worth an experiment though Yeah, I am not sure an mixin could track the changes for package.bbclass With a backport, I would probably either use GZip compression or no compression. The zstd compression was designed as a drop in replacement for Gzip if we wanted to go that route. I will say that we did something similar with Hardknott for WRLinux, but did not propose it upstream as Hardknott was knot going to be supported longer term. Having the spdx class standalone with the correctly backported changes seems to be working FYI Andres and I have done this backport to dunfell - should I post it? That said, I did just take the hit on some of the invasive parts (e.g. LICENSE value changes). I think given regulatory requirements this is important for lots of folks, so we probably need to do something here. Happy to be part of it. Hi Paul, Andres: We talked about this during the Tech Call this morning and the consensus was that this work should be done in a mix-in style layer so that it could be used by multiple releases. The LICENSE value changes could be handled by a single file with LICENSE_ style overrides in the mix-in layer, or by a set of bbappends in the mix-in layer. minor correct: LIENCE_pn- Did you include the compression changes or convert that back to basic XZ compression? We realize that this make for more work, but it's the problem of backporting a feature to the release vs having the feature in a separate mix-in. Hope this is clear. Sau! Cheers Paul -- Sau! -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#158367): https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/158367 Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/86616599/21656 Group Owner: openembedded-core+ow...@lists.openembedded.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Re: [OE-core] [PATCH 0/3] SPDX: Add annotations to relationship
On 11/15/21 2:44 PM, Paul Eggleton wrote: On Tuesday, 9 November 2021 08:01:38 NZDT Saul Wold wrote: On 11/4/21 2:20 PM, Joshua Watt wrote: On 11/4/21 3:50 PM, Richard Purdie wrote: On Thu, 2021-11-04 at 15:45 -0500, Joshua Watt wrote: On 11/4/21 3:43 PM, Richard Purdie wrote: On Thu, 2021-11-04 at 20:00 +, Jose Quaresma wrote: Richard Purdie escreveu no dia quinta, 28/10/2021 à(s) 21:58: On Thu, 2021-10-28 at 08:47 -1000, Steve Sakoman wrote: On Tue, Oct 26, 2021 at 10:41 PM Jose Quaresma wrote: Hi all, There are any plans or is it possible to backport the SBOM/SPDX to the dunfell branch? I'm going to yield to Saul as to whether he thinks this is desirable/possible or not. The packagedata changes are pretty invasive unfortunately and likely not something you're going to want in dunfell sadly. Thanks for the clarification. I have been thinking a bit more about this. I did wonder if we should consider a mixin layer of some kind for it that could work with dunfell? We could host it, it is just a question of writing the mixin layer and maintaining it. I don't think it's going to be possible with a pure mixin layer, since it relies on the extended package data? I suspect that could perhaps be patched in through a layer though? You might choose to drop the compression piece or do it differently for the backport? I'm not sure if a layer could hook in well enough to get the data needed... maybe worth an experiment though Yeah, I am not sure an mixin could track the changes for package.bbclass With a backport, I would probably either use GZip compression or no compression. The zstd compression was designed as a drop in replacement for Gzip if we wanted to go that route. I will say that we did something similar with Hardknott for WRLinux, but did not propose it upstream as Hardknott was knot going to be supported longer term. Having the spdx class standalone with the correctly backported changes seems to be working FYI Andres and I have done this backport to dunfell - should I post it? That said, I did just take the hit on some of the invasive parts (e.g. LICENSE value changes). I think given regulatory requirements this is important for lots of folks, so we probably need to do something here. Happy to be part of it. Hi Paul, Andres: We talked about this during the Tech Call this morning and the consensus was that this work should be done in a mix-in style layer so that it could be used by multiple releases. The LICENSE value changes could be handled by a single file with LICENSE_ style overrides in the mix-in layer, or by a set of bbappends in the mix-in layer. Did you include the compression changes or convert that back to basic XZ compression? We realize that this make for more work, but it's the problem of backporting a feature to the release vs having the feature in a separate mix-in. Hope this is clear. Sau! Cheers Paul -- Sau! -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#158366): https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/158366 Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/86616599/21656 Group Owner: openembedded-core+ow...@lists.openembedded.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Re: [OE-core] [PATCH 0/3] SPDX: Add annotations to relationship
Hi Paul, Great to hear it. I think the SPDX/SBOM will be useful for a bunch of users/companies that currently use the yocto LTS dunfell. It will be an awesome improvement if we have the SPDX/SBOM supported and even more given that the dunfel branch support has been extended for more than 2 years, until Apr. 2024. I would be very happy if I could help in any way. Jose Paul Eggleton escreveu no dia segunda, 15/11/2021 à(s) 22:44: > On Tuesday, 9 November 2021 08:01:38 NZDT Saul Wold wrote: > > On 11/4/21 2:20 PM, Joshua Watt wrote: > > > On 11/4/21 3:50 PM, Richard Purdie wrote: > > >> On Thu, 2021-11-04 at 15:45 -0500, Joshua Watt wrote: > > >>> On 11/4/21 3:43 PM, Richard Purdie wrote: > > On Thu, 2021-11-04 at 20:00 +, Jose Quaresma wrote: > > > Richard Purdie escreveu no > dia > > > quinta, > > > > > > 28/10/2021 à(s) 21:58: > > >> On Thu, 2021-10-28 at 08:47 -1000, Steve Sakoman wrote: > > >>> On Tue, Oct 26, 2021 at 10:41 PM Jose Quaresma > > >>> > > >> > > >> wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > There are any plans or is it possible to backport the SBOM/SPDX > > to the > > >> > > >> dunfell branch? > > >> > > >>> I'm going to yield to Saul as to whether he thinks this is > > >>> desirable/possible or not. > > >> > > >> The packagedata changes are pretty invasive unfortunately and > > >> likely not > > >> something you're going to want in dunfell sadly. > > > > > > Thanks for the clarification. > > > > I have been thinking a bit more about this. I did wonder if we > > should consider a > > mixin layer of some kind for it that could work with dunfell? > > > > We could host it, it is just a question of writing the mixin layer > and > > maintaining it. > > >>> > > >>> I don't think it's going to be possible with a pure mixin layer, > since > > >>> it relies on the extended package data? > > >> > > >> I suspect that could perhaps be patched in through a layer though? You > > >> might > > >> choose to drop the compression piece or do it differently for the > > >> backport? > > > > > > I'm not sure if a layer could hook in well enough to get the data > > > needed... maybe worth an experiment though > > > > Yeah, I am not sure an mixin could track the changes for package.bbclass > > > > > With a backport, I would probably either use GZip compression or no > > > compression. The zstd compression was designed as a drop in replacement > > > for Gzip if we wanted to go that route. > > > > I will say that we did something similar with Hardknott for WRLinux, but > > did not propose it upstream as Hardknott was knot going to be supported > > longer term. > > > > Having the spdx class standalone with the correctly backported changes > > seems to be working > > FYI Andres and I have done this backport to dunfell - should I post it? > That > said, I did just take the hit on some of the invasive parts (e.g. LICENSE > value changes). I think given regulatory requirements this is important > for > lots of folks, so we probably need to do something here. Happy to be part > of > it. > > Cheers > Paul > > > > > -- Best regards, José Quaresma -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#158343): https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/158343 Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/86616599/21656 Group Owner: openembedded-core+ow...@lists.openembedded.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Re: [OE-core] [PATCH 0/3] SPDX: Add annotations to relationship
On Tuesday, 9 November 2021 08:01:38 NZDT Saul Wold wrote: > On 11/4/21 2:20 PM, Joshua Watt wrote: > > On 11/4/21 3:50 PM, Richard Purdie wrote: > >> On Thu, 2021-11-04 at 15:45 -0500, Joshua Watt wrote: > >>> On 11/4/21 3:43 PM, Richard Purdie wrote: > On Thu, 2021-11-04 at 20:00 +, Jose Quaresma wrote: > > Richard Purdie escreveu no dia > > quinta, > > > > 28/10/2021 à(s) 21:58: > >> On Thu, 2021-10-28 at 08:47 -1000, Steve Sakoman wrote: > >>> On Tue, Oct 26, 2021 at 10:41 PM Jose Quaresma > >>> > >> > >> wrote: > Hi all, > > There are any plans or is it possible to backport the SBOM/SPDX > to the > >> > >> dunfell branch? > >> > >>> I'm going to yield to Saul as to whether he thinks this is > >>> desirable/possible or not. > >> > >> The packagedata changes are pretty invasive unfortunately and > >> likely not > >> something you're going to want in dunfell sadly. > > > > Thanks for the clarification. > > I have been thinking a bit more about this. I did wonder if we > should consider a > mixin layer of some kind for it that could work with dunfell? > > We could host it, it is just a question of writing the mixin layer and > maintaining it. > >>> > >>> I don't think it's going to be possible with a pure mixin layer, since > >>> it relies on the extended package data? > >> > >> I suspect that could perhaps be patched in through a layer though? You > >> might > >> choose to drop the compression piece or do it differently for the > >> backport? > > > > I'm not sure if a layer could hook in well enough to get the data > > needed... maybe worth an experiment though > > Yeah, I am not sure an mixin could track the changes for package.bbclass > > > With a backport, I would probably either use GZip compression or no > > compression. The zstd compression was designed as a drop in replacement > > for Gzip if we wanted to go that route. > > I will say that we did something similar with Hardknott for WRLinux, but > did not propose it upstream as Hardknott was knot going to be supported > longer term. > > Having the spdx class standalone with the correctly backported changes > seems to be working FYI Andres and I have done this backport to dunfell - should I post it? That said, I did just take the hit on some of the invasive parts (e.g. LICENSE value changes). I think given regulatory requirements this is important for lots of folks, so we probably need to do something here. Happy to be part of it. Cheers Paul -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#158316): https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/158316 Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/86616599/21656 Group Owner: openembedded-core+ow...@lists.openembedded.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Re: [OE-core] [PATCH 0/3] SPDX: Add annotations to relationship
On 11/4/21 2:20 PM, Joshua Watt wrote: On 11/4/21 3:50 PM, Richard Purdie wrote: On Thu, 2021-11-04 at 15:45 -0500, Joshua Watt wrote: On 11/4/21 3:43 PM, Richard Purdie wrote: On Thu, 2021-11-04 at 20:00 +, Jose Quaresma wrote: Richard Purdie escreveu no dia quinta, 28/10/2021 à(s) 21:58: On Thu, 2021-10-28 at 08:47 -1000, Steve Sakoman wrote: On Tue, Oct 26, 2021 at 10:41 PM Jose Quaresma wrote: Hi all, There are any plans or is it possible to backport the SBOM/SPDX to the dunfell branch? I'm going to yield to Saul as to whether he thinks this is desirable/possible or not. The packagedata changes are pretty invasive unfortunately and likely not something you're going to want in dunfell sadly. Thanks for the clarification. I have been thinking a bit more about this. I did wonder if we should consider a mixin layer of some kind for it that could work with dunfell? We could host it, it is just a question of writing the mixin layer and maintaining it. I don't think it's going to be possible with a pure mixin layer, since it relies on the extended package data? I suspect that could perhaps be patched in through a layer though? You might choose to drop the compression piece or do it differently for the backport? I'm not sure if a layer could hook in well enough to get the data needed... maybe worth an experiment though Yeah, I am not sure an mixin could track the changes for package.bbclass With a backport, I would probably either use GZip compression or no compression. The zstd compression was designed as a drop in replacement for Gzip if we wanted to go that route. I will say that we did something similar with Hardknott for WRLinux, but did not propose it upstream as Hardknott was knot going to be supported longer term. Having the spdx class standalone with the correctly backported changes seems to be working Sau! Cheers, Richard -- Sau! -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#157987): https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/157987 Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/86616599/21656 Group Owner: openembedded-core+ow...@lists.openembedded.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Re: [OE-core] [PATCH 0/3] SPDX: Add annotations to relationship
On 11/4/21 3:50 PM, Richard Purdie wrote: On Thu, 2021-11-04 at 15:45 -0500, Joshua Watt wrote: On 11/4/21 3:43 PM, Richard Purdie wrote: On Thu, 2021-11-04 at 20:00 +, Jose Quaresma wrote: Richard Purdie escreveu no dia quinta, 28/10/2021 à(s) 21:58: On Thu, 2021-10-28 at 08:47 -1000, Steve Sakoman wrote: On Tue, Oct 26, 2021 at 10:41 PM Jose Quaresma wrote: Hi all, There are any plans or is it possible to backport the SBOM/SPDX to the dunfell branch? I'm going to yield to Saul as to whether he thinks this is desirable/possible or not. The packagedata changes are pretty invasive unfortunately and likely not something you're going to want in dunfell sadly. Thanks for the clarification. I have been thinking a bit more about this. I did wonder if we should consider a mixin layer of some kind for it that could work with dunfell? We could host it, it is just a question of writing the mixin layer and maintaining it. I don't think it's going to be possible with a pure mixin layer, since it relies on the extended package data? I suspect that could perhaps be patched in through a layer though? You might choose to drop the compression piece or do it differently for the backport? I'm not sure if a layer could hook in well enough to get the data needed... maybe worth an experiment though With a backport, I would probably either use GZip compression or no compression. The zstd compression was designed as a drop in replacement for Gzip if we wanted to go that route. Cheers, Richard -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#157876): https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/157876 Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/86616599/21656 Group Owner: openembedded-core+ow...@lists.openembedded.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Re: [OE-core] [PATCH 0/3] SPDX: Add annotations to relationship
On Thu, 2021-11-04 at 15:45 -0500, Joshua Watt wrote: > On 11/4/21 3:43 PM, Richard Purdie wrote: > > On Thu, 2021-11-04 at 20:00 +, Jose Quaresma wrote: > > > > > > Richard Purdie escreveu no dia > > > quinta, > > > 28/10/2021 à(s) 21:58: > > > > On Thu, 2021-10-28 at 08:47 -1000, Steve Sakoman wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Oct 26, 2021 at 10:41 PM Jose Quaresma > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > > > > > There are any plans or is it possible to backport the SBOM/SPDX to > > > > > > the > > > > dunfell branch? > > > > > I'm going to yield to Saul as to whether he thinks this is > > > > > desirable/possible or not. > > > > The packagedata changes are pretty invasive unfortunately and likely not > > > > something you're going to want in dunfell sadly. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the clarification. > > > > > I have been thinking a bit more about this. I did wonder if we should > > consider a > > mixin layer of some kind for it that could work with dunfell? > > > > We could host it, it is just a question of writing the mixin layer and > > maintaining it. > > I don't think it's going to be possible with a pure mixin layer, since > it relies on the extended package data? I suspect that could perhaps be patched in through a layer though? You might choose to drop the compression piece or do it differently for the backport? Cheers, Richard -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#157874): https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/157874 Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/86616599/21656 Group Owner: openembedded-core+ow...@lists.openembedded.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Re: [OE-core] [PATCH 0/3] SPDX: Add annotations to relationship
On 11/4/21 3:43 PM, Richard Purdie wrote: On Thu, 2021-11-04 at 20:00 +, Jose Quaresma wrote: Richard Purdie escreveu no dia quinta, 28/10/2021 à(s) 21:58: On Thu, 2021-10-28 at 08:47 -1000, Steve Sakoman wrote: On Tue, Oct 26, 2021 at 10:41 PM Jose Quaresma wrote: Hi all, There are any plans or is it possible to backport the SBOM/SPDX to the dunfell branch? I'm going to yield to Saul as to whether he thinks this is desirable/possible or not. The packagedata changes are pretty invasive unfortunately and likely not something you're going to want in dunfell sadly. Thanks for the clarification. I have been thinking a bit more about this. I did wonder if we should consider a mixin layer of some kind for it that could work with dunfell? We could host it, it is just a question of writing the mixin layer and maintaining it. I don't think it's going to be possible with a pure mixin layer, since it relies on the extended package data? Cheers, Richard -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#157873): https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/157873 Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/86616599/21656 Group Owner: openembedded-core+ow...@lists.openembedded.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Re: [OE-core] [PATCH 0/3] SPDX: Add annotations to relationship
On Thu, 2021-11-04 at 20:00 +, Jose Quaresma wrote: > > > Richard Purdie escreveu no dia quinta, > 28/10/2021 à(s) 21:58: > > On Thu, 2021-10-28 at 08:47 -1000, Steve Sakoman wrote: > > > On Tue, Oct 26, 2021 at 10:41 PM Jose Quaresma > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > There are any plans or is it possible to backport the SBOM/SPDX to the > > dunfell branch? > > > > > > I'm going to yield to Saul as to whether he thinks this is > > > desirable/possible or not. > > > > The packagedata changes are pretty invasive unfortunately and likely not > > something you're going to want in dunfell sadly. > > > > > Thanks for the clarification. > I have been thinking a bit more about this. I did wonder if we should consider a mixin layer of some kind for it that could work with dunfell? We could host it, it is just a question of writing the mixin layer and maintaining it. Cheers, Richard -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#157872): https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/157872 Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/86616599/21656 Group Owner: openembedded-core+ow...@lists.openembedded.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Re: [OE-core] [PATCH 0/3] SPDX: Add annotations to relationship
Richard Purdie escreveu no dia quinta, 28/10/2021 à(s) 21:58: > On Thu, 2021-10-28 at 08:47 -1000, Steve Sakoman wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 26, 2021 at 10:41 PM Jose Quaresma > wrote: > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > There are any plans or is it possible to backport the SBOM/SPDX to the > dunfell branch? > > > > I'm going to yield to Saul as to whether he thinks this is > > desirable/possible or not. > > The packagedata changes are pretty invasive unfortunately and likely not > something you're going to want in dunfell sadly. > Thanks for the clarification. > > Cheers, > > Richard > > -- Best regards, José Quaresma -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#157870): https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/157870 Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/86616599/21656 Group Owner: openembedded-core+ow...@lists.openembedded.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Re: [OE-core] [PATCH 0/3] SPDX: Add annotations to relationship
On Thu, 2021-10-28 at 08:47 -1000, Steve Sakoman wrote: > On Tue, Oct 26, 2021 at 10:41 PM Jose Quaresma > wrote: > > > > Hi all, > > > > There are any plans or is it possible to backport the SBOM/SPDX to the > > dunfell branch? > > I'm going to yield to Saul as to whether he thinks this is > desirable/possible or not. The packagedata changes are pretty invasive unfortunately and likely not something you're going to want in dunfell sadly. Cheers, Richard -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#157605): https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/157605 Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/86616599/21656 Group Owner: openembedded-core+ow...@lists.openembedded.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Re: [OE-core] [PATCH 0/3] SPDX: Add annotations to relationship
On Tue, Oct 26, 2021 at 10:41 PM Jose Quaresma wrote: > > Hi all, > > There are any plans or is it possible to backport the SBOM/SPDX to the > dunfell branch? I'm going to yield to Saul as to whether he thinks this is desirable/possible or not. Steve > Doing a quick look on it I see that it is not too intrusive and the most one > is in > classes/package: Add extended packaged data > 7ec54b174304e940ec66f21ac512f7b50fa637b3 > > Jose > > Saul Wold escreveu no dia quarta, 27/10/2021 à(s) > 02:31: >> >> Add annotations to relationships and refactor code to add >> create_annotation() function for code reuse. >> >> Ensure that "cross" recipes are factored into isNative also. >> >> v2: removed leftover and unused annotation per Joshua >> >> Sau! >> >> Saul Wold (3): >> spdx.py: Add annotation to relationship >> create-spdx: add create_annotation function >> create-spdx: cross recipes are native also >> >> classes/create-spdx.bbclass | 22 ++ >> lib/oe/spdx.py | 6 +- >> 2 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) >> >> -- >> 2.31.1 >> >> >> >> > > > -- > Best regards, > > José Quaresma > > > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#157604): https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/157604 Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/86616599/21656 Group Owner: openembedded-core+ow...@lists.openembedded.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Re: [OE-core] [PATCH 0/3] SPDX: Add annotations to relationship
Hi all, There are any plans or is it possible to backport the SBOM/SPDX to the dunfell branch? Doing a quick look on it I see that it is not too intrusive and the most one is in classes/package: Add extended packaged data 7ec54b174304e940ec66f21ac512f7b50fa637b3 Jose Saul Wold escreveu no dia quarta, 27/10/2021 à(s) 02:31: > Add annotations to relationships and refactor code to add > create_annotation() function for code reuse. > > Ensure that "cross" recipes are factored into isNative also. > > v2: removed leftover and unused annotation per Joshua > > Sau! > > Saul Wold (3): > spdx.py: Add annotation to relationship > create-spdx: add create_annotation function > create-spdx: cross recipes are native also > > classes/create-spdx.bbclass | 22 ++ > lib/oe/spdx.py | 6 +- > 2 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) > > -- > 2.31.1 > > > > > -- Best regards, José Quaresma -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#157476): https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/157476 Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/86616599/21656 Group Owner: openembedded-core+ow...@lists.openembedded.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
[OE-core] [PATCH 0/3] SPDX: Add annotations to relationship
Add annotations to relationships and refactor code to add create_annotation() function for code reuse. Ensure that "cross" recipes are factored into isNative also. v2: removed leftover and unused annotation per Joshua Sau! Saul Wold (3): spdx.py: Add annotation to relationship create-spdx: add create_annotation function create-spdx: cross recipes are native also classes/create-spdx.bbclass | 22 ++ lib/oe/spdx.py | 6 +- 2 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) -- 2.31.1 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#157470): https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/157470 Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/86616599/21656 Group Owner: openembedded-core+ow...@lists.openembedded.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Re: [OE-core] [PATCH 0/3] SPDX: Add annotations to relationship
On Tue, Oct 26, 2021 at 6:36 PM Saul Wold wrote: > > Add annotations to relationships and refactor code to add > create_annotation() function for code reuse. > > Ensure that "cross" recipes are factored into isNative also. Other than the comment in the later patch, LGTM > > Sau! > > Saul Wold (3): > spdx.py: Add annotation to relationship > create-spdx: add create_annotation function > create-spdx: cross recipes are native also > > classes/create-spdx.bbclass | 23 +++ > lib/oe/spdx.py | 6 +- > 2 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) > > -- > 2.31.1 > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#157464): https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/157464 Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/86616599/21656 Group Owner: openembedded-core+ow...@lists.openembedded.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
[OE-core] [PATCH 0/3] SPDX: Add annotations to relationship
Add annotations to relationships and refactor code to add create_annotation() function for code reuse. Ensure that "cross" recipes are factored into isNative also. Sau! Saul Wold (3): spdx.py: Add annotation to relationship create-spdx: add create_annotation function create-spdx: cross recipes are native also classes/create-spdx.bbclass | 23 +++ lib/oe/spdx.py | 6 +- 2 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) -- 2.31.1 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#157459): https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/157459 Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/86616599/21656 Group Owner: openembedded-core+ow...@lists.openembedded.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
