On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 09:59:27PM +, Gisi, Mark wrote:
> We use .spdx (e.g., busybox.1.22.1.spdx) for the
> following reasons:
>
> 1. We typically ship tens (if not hundreds) of SPDX files for a
>single product release. We consolidate all the SPDX files in a
>single archive. They can't
.spdx might become common practice we are unlikely to use it.
- Mark
From: spdx-tech-boun...@lists.spdx.org
[mailto:spdx-tech-boun...@lists.spdx.org] On Behalf Of g...@sourceauditor.com
Sent: Saturday, August 12, 2017 11:28 AM
To: spdx-tech@lists.spdx.org
Subject: [spdx-tech] SPDX file nami
On Sat, Aug 12, 2017 at 11:27:51AM -0700, g...@sourceauditor.com wrote:
> 3) [packename].spdx where packagename is the name of the package
>
> Note that #3 is currently in use.
My concern with the current SPDXParser.spdx [1] is that it is not
immediately obvious that the file applies to the
I would like to bring an issue that was raised on the SPDX tools github repo
regarding the name of the SPDX file to the larger mailing list:
https://github.com/spdx/tools/issues/107#issuecomment-321548533
Background: Although an SPDX file was present in the repo, it was not easily
found. There
