On Wed, Nov 03, 2021 at 01:31:50PM -0400, Steve Grubb wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Wednesday, November 3, 2021 10:00:05 AM EDT David Sastre wrote:
> > I assume that the people who worked on it looked into various different
> > possibilities for its implementation and decide on the current one, but I
> > have a few questions:
> >
> > - Since there are people concerned about the increased size of the
> > binary, and since none of the fields are mandatory, would it be
> > beneficial to use a package URL (PURL[1]) instead? That way, a few bytes
> > can be saved (a few values are included in the same key).
> >
> > E.g.
> >
> > {
> > "type":"rpm",
> > "os":"fedora",
> > "osVersion":"33",
> > "name":"coreutils",
> > "version":"4711.0815.fc13",
> > "architecture":"arm32",
> > "osCpe": "cpe:/o:fedoraproject:fedora:33",
> > "debugInfoUrl": "https://debuginfod.fedoraproject.org/"}
>
> I keep seeing mention of architecture in this discussion. Isn't arch
> available as the e_machine member of the elf header?
It is, but we include in the header for completeness, so that the
header is "self-contained" so to speak. (Also, at least in priciple
it's be possible for the code arch to not match the package architecture,
like when you purposefully build a 32bit binary in 64-bit rpm…)
Zbyszek
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[email protected]
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
