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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

More explicit expectations for package identifiers #16

Closed
luhring opened this issue Feb 5, 2023 · 2 comments
Closed

More explicit expectations for package identifiers #16

luhring opened this issue Feb 5, 2023 · 2 comments
Labels
area/product Issues and PRs related to the product field

Comments

@luhring
Copy link
Contributor

luhring commented Feb 5, 2023

(split out from #10)

See #10 (comment)

Currently the spec reads:

The use of Package URLs (purls) is recommended

This ultimately means products could be anything.

We should consider either a) absolutely requiring PURLs, or b) requiring that the type of identifier being used in a statement is declared explicitly.

cc: @garethr — feel free to expand or correct me on this idea!
@luhring luhring mentioned this issue Feb 5, 2023
Closed
@tschmidtb51
Copy link

tschmidtb51 commented Feb 9, 2023 •
edited
Loading

If you require purl; a basic regex might be helpful: "^pkg:[A-Za-z\\.\\-\\+][A-Za-z0-9\\.\\-\\+]*/.+" (encoded as JSON pattern) - copied from an open standard

@knqyf263 knqyf263 mentioned this issue Apr 17, 2023
Open
@puerco puerco added the area/product Issues and PRs related to the product field label Jun 14, 2023
@puerco
Copy link
Member

puerco commented Aug 22, 2023

This is now resolved, release v0.2.0 of the spec now requires types of identifiers in products and subcomponents.

@puerco puerco closed this as completed Aug 22, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
area/product Issues and PRs related to the product field
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
3 participants
@puerco @luhring @tschmidtb51