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