hello, I would suggest to keep this information "out of band" and not inside SPDX documents. Current information inside SPDX documents is largely static: package, license, checksum, and so on. Of course there could have been errors that need to be fixed, but overall these fields are static.
EOL information, commercial status and support status on the other hand are much more dynamic. Sometimes packages are supported for only a few hours, sometimes for decades. Very often it is also not clear when a package is EOL or supported as many authors/maintainers do not announce it. The support is sometimes also not done by the author/maintainers, but by an external entity (for example: enterprise grade Linux distributions). Does this mean it is supported, or only supported for people willing to pay for it, or .... ? It is simply not clear and it adds a lot of fuzziness. This would make SPDX a lot more cumbersome, as not only do the documents need to be generated, but they also need to be updated all the time to avoid falling out of sync. It also mixes syntax and semantics, which is never a good idea. armijn > Kate and Sandeep, > > > > Our customers are also interested in this information. There are two > concepts to consider: > > Commercial Status: > > <enumeration value="Available"></enumeration> > > <enumeration value="Retired"></enumeration> > > <enumeration value="EOL"></enumeration> > > <enumeration value="BetaTest"></enumeration> > > <enumeration value="Pilot"></enumeration> > > <enumeration value="Abandoned"></enumeration> > > > > Support Status: > > <enumeration value="Supported"></enumeration> > <enumeration value="Unsupported"></enumeration> > <enumeration value="Community"></enumeration> > > > > Both are described in the open-source Vendor Response File (VRF) XML > schema available here: > https://raw.githubusercontent.com/rjb4standards/REA-Products/master/SAGVendorSchema.xsd > > > > > > > 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! > <https://reliableenergyanalytics.com/products>/* ™ > > http://www.reliableenergyanalytics.com > <http://www.reliableenergyanalytics.com/> > > Email: [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> > > Tel: +1 978-696-1788 > > > > *From:* [email protected] <[email protected]> *On Behalf Of *Kate > Stewart > *Sent:* Friday, May 6, 2022 3:34 PM > *To:* SPDX-general <[email protected]> > *Subject:* Re: [spdx] End Of Life Tag in spdx #spdx > > > > Hi Sandeep, > > > > There is a pull request expected shortly from the Usage profile > team, to add this specific field to 2.3. > > When it comes in, please feel free to review and make sure it's going > to suffice for your needs. > > > > For now, with 2.2 documents, suggest you use the Package Comment > field > (https://spdx.github.io/spdx-spec/package-information/#720-package-comment-field) > and standardize on a tag (like EndOfSupport: ) and the date. > > > > Will that work for now? > > > > Thanks, > Kate > > > > On Fri, May 6, 2022 at 2:27 PM Patil, Sandeep via lists.spdx.org > <http://lists.spdx.org> <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi All, > We have requirement to specify End Of Life as part of package > information in SBoM , > Is there way current SPDX format support this ? > > Regards > Sandeep > > -- Armijn Hemel, MSc Tjaldur Software Governance Solutions -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#1522): https://lists.spdx.org/g/spdx/message/1522 Mute This Topic: https://lists.spdx.org/mt/90941107/21656 Mute #spdx:https://lists.spdx.org/g/spdx/mutehashtag/spdx Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.spdx.org/g/spdx/leave/2655439/21656/1698928721/xyzzy [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
