From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <jpewhacker@gmail.com>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on
	aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org
From: "Joshua Watt" <JPEWhacker@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [OE-core] [PATCH 0/3] SPDX: Add annotations to relationship
References: <20211027013050.137364-1-saul.wold@windriver.com>
 <CANPvuRkxEFt7LHO_BAnQpEWU=T9ctFh45d+SzFfe=jBHUOH1aQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGDS+nkJ4en5JjLGSMuePSQUY+mvLiek4X67q5Go+LA8307ApQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <5a8c05846279f160ee2d5fe7ef7502c29e1bfee1.camel@linuxfoundation.org>
 <CANPvuRnT027cnayyR=2XO_VtjhKd27rhXG=ieX4KZmDFC2yuCQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <2035d95566fd1cb0453186cc8034f234b9e9fc98.camel@linuxfoundation.org>
 <f4a34ed5-320a-2ec6-ef57-4a1efc4871ee@gmail.com>
 <a428d22285cc222b064cf837c00a3defd3b3770f.camel@linuxfoundation.org>
Message-ID: <89232e41-ac8b-def5-94b9-22d08b7e01d3@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2021 16:20:20 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <a428d22285cc222b064cf837c00a3defd3b3770f.camel@linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
List-id: <openembedded-core.lists.openembedded.org>
To: Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>, Jose Quaresma <quaresma.jose@gmail.com>
Cc: Steve Sakoman <sakoman@gmail.com>, Saul Wold <Saul.Wold@windriver.com>, OE-core <openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org>


On 11/4/21 3:50 PM, Richard Purdie wrote:
> On Thu, 2021-11-04 at 15:45 -0500, Joshua Watt wrote:
>> On 11/4/21 3:43 PM, Richard Purdie wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2021-11-04 at 20:00 +0000, Jose Quaresma wrote:
>>>> Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org> escreveu no dia quinta,
>>>> 28/10/2021 à(s) 21:58:
>>>>> On Thu, 2021-10-28 at 08:47 -1000, Steve Sakoman wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, Oct 26, 2021 at 10:41 PM Jose Quaresma <quaresma.jose@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There are any plans or is it possible to backport the SBOM/SPDX to the
>>>>> dunfell branch?
>>>>>> I'm going to yield to Saul as to whether he thinks this is
>>>>>> desirable/possible or not.
>>>>> The packagedata changes are pretty invasive unfortunately and likely not
>>>>> something you're going to want in dunfell sadly.
>>>>>
>>>> Thanks for the clarification.
>>>>
>>> I have been thinking a bit more about this. I did wonder if we should consider a
>>> mixin layer of some kind for it that could work with dunfell?
>>>
>>> We could host it, it is just a question of writing the mixin layer and
>>> maintaining it.
>> I don't think it's going to be possible with a pure mixin layer, since
>> it relies on the extended package data?
> I suspect that could perhaps be patched in through a layer though? You might
> choose to drop the compression piece or do it differently for the backport?


I'm not sure if a layer could hook in well enough to get the data 
needed...  maybe worth an experiment though


With a backport, I would probably either use GZip compression or no 
compression. The zstd compression was designed as a drop in replacement 
for Gzip if we wanted to go that route.

>
> Cheers,
>
> Richard
>