Technical Team/Minutes/2013-03-26

From SPDX Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search


  • Jack Manbeck
  • Marshall Clow
  • Gary O'Neall
  • Kate Stewart
  • Kirsten Newcomer
  • Bill Schineller

New website

Jack reviewed the new SPDX website and wiki (work in progress).

Plan is to have the new website up in time for the Collab Summit.

Martin M. is working on migrating existing content to the new wiki pages.

Plug & play for Collab Summit

Kate described the plan: each participant would produce SPDX document for Time (all fields) and Busybox (package level only) as well as Linux kernel (package level only).

Kate will ask Scott to send an email to appropriate list reminding folks and outlining goals/process.

RDF documents should be converted to Tag/value format for easier viewing.

The new SPDX Compare utility is available now and can be used at Collab Summit or in advance to compare outputs.

The utility works best with RDF input but also supports Tag/value.

Team proposed creating a wiki page ahead of Collab Summit for participants to share SPDX documents ahead of Collab Summit.

Expected participants (please correct as needed):

  • Daniel German will present Ninka results
  • Matt German Prez will present Fossology plug-in results
  • Kirsten Newcomer will present Black Duck results
  • Gary O'Neall will present Source Auditor results
  • Mark Gisi will present Wind River results

2.0 work

Kate has started a draft 2.0 spec and will post to the current website

Jack volunteered to create an instance diagram for the Time project that follows 2.0 goals, including 2 SPDX document: a) SPDX document for original Time package and b) SPDX document for a patch to Time which references the original SPDX document. Jack will post questions / results to the mail list for discussion. He believes he can have something available for the team to review at the April 9th meeting.

The team proposes to drop annotations from the 2.0 spec for the following reasons: based on discussions to date, there is insufficient clarity about how to connect the current abstract definition of annotations with the 2.0 use cases. In the absence of a strong advocate to bridge this gap, and to keep things moving forward, we propose annotations be dropped from the 2.0 model. An email will be sent to the mail list notifying of this and requesting comment.