Thanks Gary much appreciate the direction > On Aug 27, 2022, at 1:55 PM, Gary O'Neall <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 (#4759): https://lists.spdx.org/g/Spdx-tech/message/4759 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]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
