Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Generate both SPDX and CycloneDX SBOMs by default #661

Closed
imjasonh opened this issue Mar 20, 2022 · 8 comments
Closed

Generate both SPDX and CycloneDX SBOMs by default #661

imjasonh opened this issue Mar 20, 2022 · 8 comments
Labels
lifecycle/frozen sbom Related to generation of SBOMs

Comments

@imjasonh
Copy link
Member

Today the default is --sbom=spdx, we should probably have an --sbom=all option and make that the default.

all kinda sounds like it includes the go-version.m SBOM, and I'm not sure that makes sense since I don't think anybody uses that today. It was mostly there for testing IIRC. Maybe we should just remove that option entirely?

@mattmoor
Copy link
Collaborator

I hit a similar problem in chainguard-dev/apko#149

@imjasonh imjasonh added the sbom Related to generation of SBOMs label Mar 28, 2022
@puerco
Copy link
Contributor

puerco commented Mar 29, 2022

What about making --sbom a string list defaulting to spdx,cyclonedx?

@mattmoor
Copy link
Collaborator

I think that's fine once we resolve the bigger issues with how we store things.

@github-actions
Copy link

This issue is stale because it has been open for 90 days with no
activity. It will automatically close after 30 more days of
inactivity. Keep fresh with the 'lifecycle/frozen' label.

@costica11
Copy link

@imjasonh This issue is closed as completed. But I can't find this feature in the main branch. What is the meaning of "completed" here?

@imjasonh imjasonh closed this as not planned Won't fix, can't repro, duplicate, stale Mar 22, 2023
@imjasonh
Copy link
Member Author

Sorry, that was my fault, I meant to close it as "not planned".

@costica11
Copy link

@imjasonh Thank you for the reply. Does this mean that the project no longer wants to consider this proposal? Are there any particular reasons for it?

@imjasonh
Copy link
Member Author

I think in general we discovered there wasn't much user demand for the feature, even among our own usage. I wouldn't rule it out completely in the future, but emitting both flavors would need to be motivated by a use case, even moreso to make it the default behavior.

If you have a use case we can discuss it. I think we'd start with an option to write both formats, and evaluate making it the default at a later time.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
lifecycle/frozen sbom Related to generation of SBOMs
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants