You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Copy file name to clipboardExpand all lines: accepted/0000-sbom-command.md
+30-12Lines changed: 30 additions & 12 deletions
Display the source diff
Display the rich diff
Original file line number
Diff line number
Diff line change
@@ -142,10 +142,6 @@ The <code>[externalRefs](https://spdx.github.io/spdx-spec/v2.3/package-informati
142
142
Making it a distinct command allows us to add SBOM-specific features in the future like a `--sign` flag which could be used to generate a signed SBOM. \
143
143
\
144
144
_Recommendation: Add a distinct command for generating an SBOM._
145
-
146
-
* SPDX doesn’t provide a natural way to differentiate between the various npm dependency types like “dev”, “peer”, and “optional”. We might consider using something like the [package comment field](https://spdx.github.io/spdx-spec/v2.3/package-information/#720-package-comment-field) to capture this information. \
147
-
\
148
-
_Recommendation: Skip for the first version of this feature. Wait to see if there is demand for this information and/or if the specification evolves to account for this metadata._
149
145
150
146
* Does `npm-sbom` command have a notion of a “default” SBOM format? Do we give preference to one of CycloneDX/SPDX or do we remain totally neutral (possibly at the expense of DX)? \
151
147
\
@@ -304,7 +300,7 @@ The proposed SPDX SBOM generated for the project above would look like the follo
0 commit comments