https://bugs.linuxfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1298
Gary O'Neall <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |[email protected] --- Comment #1 from Gary O'Neall <[email protected]> 2015-07-28 18:13:32 UTC --- A couple of thoughts: - What if we just relaxed what was mandatory and allowed for a lightweight package definition? We would not need a new tag/property that way. There has also been a longstanding request for a "light" version of SPDX - this would help solve that issue. - I would propose an even lighter weight package definition, possibly just including the external ID as a required field (assuming that proposal holds) - I am running into a real-time need for this in updating the Maven plug-in for SPDX. There are a lot of dependencies I would like to describe which have Maven metadata, but not enough package information to create a full SPDX package. Gary -- Configure bugmail: https://bugs.linuxfoundation.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug. _______________________________________________ Spdx-tech mailing list [email protected] https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-tech
