Technical Team/Minutes/2011-08-23

From SPDX Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search


  • Bill Schineller
  • Kirsten Newcomer
  • Branden Robinson
  • Peter Williams
  • Gary O’Neall
  • Kate Stewart
  • Nicholaas Loke
  • Jack Manbeck
  • Marshal Clow


  • Weekly call Logistics
  • LinuxCon Feedback
  • Proposal for Spec Version numbering
  • Tools source structure
  • Verification Code algorithm
  • Composite Packages
  • “Garbage Files”


  • Move to 2:00 Eastern to accommodate west coast- considering that we don’t currently have any attendees from Europe. Kate will update Wiki.

Feedback from LinuxCon

  • Discussed relationship between SPDX packages and the needed for a hierarchical relationship
  • Discussed PDDL
  • Discussed compatibility between tags and RDF for future development

Numbering for Spec. version

  • Format AA.BB.CC
    • AA – Major version - Incremented for changes incompatible with previous versions (current definition)
    • BB – Minor version - would be used when changes may impact the consumer, but is compatible with previous versions
    • CC – Micro version - would be used when the changes do not impact to the consumer of SPDX

Tools source structure

  • Create separate repositories for the different language tools
  • Create a separate git-repo named “Python-SPDX-Tools”
  • Rename current tools repo to “Java-SPDX-Tools”
  • Kate will either send info to Gary or send info to Linux Foundation to make changes

Note: Bugzilla has a target field to indicate which release the resolution is targeted for. There are no targets for detail “CC” versions; we will use the major version targets for those changes.

Verification code algorithm

  • Need to specify a better separator character “\n” is ambiguous – Kate will choose a character and update spec
  • Update to the verification code algorithm would result in an increment to the micro version (e.g. 1.0.1)

Bug 818 – Composite packages

  • Agreed to create a request for proposal
  • Will update bug with additional information discussed on the call
  • Three approaches were discussed:
    • Include all composite information in one document
    • Keep package documents separate and have separate new type of file to cross reference.
    • Enable multiple documents to cross reference each other
      • Link files
      • Unique IDs
        • Can use the verification code
  • Signing documents
    • How does adding reviewer information impact the signing?
  • Composite packages requirements
    • Requirements will be included in the request for proposal
    • We will discuss the requirements on next week’s call

“Garbage Files” (e.g. .svn files)

  • All files need to be included in the file info, even “garbage files”
  • Proposal to create a new file type – “CRUFT” – proposal for the mailing list. Gary will write a proposal in the form of a bug and send to the mailing list. (Bug 944 has been added with the proposal)