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.

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

Redo the interface for SBOM generation #258

Open
dmikusa opened this issue Jun 23, 2023 · 4 comments
Open

Redo the interface for SBOM generation #258

dmikusa opened this issue Jun 23, 2023 · 4 comments
Labels
type:enhancement A general enhancement v2 Work for v2 release

Comments

@dmikusa
Copy link
Contributor

dmikusa commented Jun 23, 2023

Describe the Enhancement

I would like to see the SBOM generation reworked behind a new interface or abstraction. We had some limits imposed when this functionality was added because we didn't want to break compatibility in v1. That is not a concern with v2, so we should rethink the SBOM interface and abstractions in the library.

In particular, I would like to be able to easily swap in/out different SBOM generators w/out causing changes to core code.

Motivation

SBOM is an area where things are still changing rapidly. We need to be flexible. We also need to support multiple tools, because Syft is not the only tool folks want to use.

@dmikusa dmikusa added type:enhancement A general enhancement v2 Work for v2 release labels Jun 23, 2023
@loewenstein
Copy link

Could we actually deprecate the old SBOM logic and compatibly introduce an alternative? That would decouple this from bumping the major version of libpak - at least until we want to eventually remove the deprecated API.

@dmikusa
Copy link
Contributor Author

dmikusa commented May 13, 2024

Possibly, but the thought with this issue is that we won't be able to introduce a new API that is acceptable without breaking the API in some way. The previous attempt had limits to which we could go without breaking things, so I'm hoping that we can break things so that we can arrive at an API that is better suited for the task.

@loewenstein-sap
Copy link

If nobody is actively working on this, may I suggest to release v2 and move this to the next major?

@dmikusa
Copy link
Contributor Author

dmikusa commented Jan 14, 2025

As much as the present interface bothers me, it's very low priority for me so I've definitely been thinking about pushing this back to the next major release. It's just a big thing, cause that will hopefully not be for multiple years. 🤔

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
type:enhancement A general enhancement v2 Work for v2 release
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants