Hi Maximilian,
If you're recognizing and generating SPDX 2.1,
its best to mark the generated file as SPDX 2.1.
If an older parser encounters the file and version number
and doesn't recognize it, its a bug on that parser.
Of concern, there are new fields added in 2.1 that are
not present in 2.0 (backwards compatibility), its best
the file is correctly labeled.
Hope this helps, Kate
On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 7:39 AM, Maximilian Huber <
[email protected]> wrote:
> Hello spdx-tech@,
>
> In FOSSology we generate SPDX reports which are compatible with the
> 2.0 and the 2.1 specification and we are now discussing, which version
> to specify in the created document.
>
> It might be a good idea to stay on version 2.0 since parsers, which
> read 2.1, might probably also be able to understand 2.0. But older
> parses fail if they see the new version.
>
> What would you recommend? What is the status on downwards and upwards
> compatibility on common parser implementations and tooling?
>
> Best regards
> Maximilian
>
> --
> Maximilian Huber * [email protected] * +49-174-3410223
> TNG Technology Consulting GmbH, Betastr. 13a, 85774 Unterföhring
> Geschäftsführer: Henrik Klagges, Dr. Robert Dahlke, Gerhard Müller
> Sitz: Unterföhring * Amtsgericht München * HRB 135082
>
> _______________________________________________
> Spdx-tech mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-tech
>
>
_______________________________________________
Spdx-tech mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-tech
