* Steve Grubb:
> 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?
There are variants which are not visible in the ELF header (e.g.,
different ISA levels or calling conventions for floating point), or not
visible at the ELF level (e.g., alternative builds with CPU-specific
optimizations that are automatically loaded by glibc). Using “arm32”
suggests that one isn't really interested in this level of detail,
though.
Thanks,
Florian
_______________________________________________
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
