Hi Dick, If you have a package with a PrimaryPackagePurpose of "FILE", I would agree you could just have a packageName property and not be required to have an additional SpdxFile object. Also, setting FilesAnalyze to false would be correct IMO.
Regards, Gary > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Dick > Brooks > Sent: Saturday, August 27, 2022 9:37 AM > To: 'SPDX Technical Mailing List' <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [spdx-tech] PDF file for the SPDX 2.3 Specification - partial > success! > > Hello Everyone, > > Hoping someone can provide insights under the topic of "Fun with > FilesAnalyzed" in V 2.3. > > Now that we have a PrimaryPackagePurpose with a "FILE" option, do we ever > need to produce a "FileName" object in a V 2.3 SPDX SBOM? > If no, should we always set FilesAnalyzed = false and just show PackageName > objects? > > I welcome your insights. > > > Thanks, > > Dick Brooks > > Active Member of the CISA Critical Manufacturing Sector, Sector Coordinating > Council - A Public-Private Partnership > > Never trust software, always verify and report! T > http://www.reliableenergyanalytics.com > Email: [email protected] > Tel: +1 978-696-1788 > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] <[email protected]> On Behalf Of > Sebastian Crane > Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2022 2:12 PM > To: SPDX Technical Mailing List <[email protected]> > Subject: [spdx-tech] PDF file for the SPDX 2.3 Specification - partial success! > > Dear all, > > I have been able to generate a PDF file of the SPDX 2.3 Specification using the > TeX template which is present in our GitHub 'Org'. However, there are some > issues with text overlapping the margins on pages 36 and 183. > Additionally, I have not yet added the cover page or any headers/footers. > Finally, the visual presentation appears different from SPDX 2.2.1's PDF file (I > haven't been able to locate the theming information that's been used in the > past. Given the typeface used, it appears to have been generated using > Microsoft Word rather than TeX). > > Please see the attached PDF file if you are interested, but don't consider it to > be an official SPDX document at this point, due to the aforementioned > typographical errors and any other issues that might be found before > publication. > > If you want the 'real' SPDX 2.3 specification, please see our website for the > HTML version: https://spdx.dev/specifications/ > > Best wishes, > > Sebastian > > > > > > > > > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#4758): https://lists.spdx.org/g/Spdx-tech/message/4758 Mute This Topic: https://lists.spdx.org/mt/93210505/21656 Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.spdx.org/g/Spdx-tech/unsub [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
