feat: Create bill of materials instead of only extracted comments#45259
feat: Create bill of materials instead of only extracted comments#45259
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Ferdinand Thiessen <opensource@fthiessen.de>
Signed-off-by: Ferdinand Thiessen <opensource@fthiessen.de>
|
Does that also include license headers from our own source code or just from the packages used? |
No but all other licenses we depend on, as all of our code is licensed under AGPL-3.0 (some parts even AGPL-3.0+ but at least AGPL-3.0 and compatible so that we can publish it under AGPL-3.0) |
Well, this might not be absolutely true in 100% of all cases while true for most. Some files do have MIT or Apache or else, while always compatible. However for any file not shipping a license header we need to have an entry in the Do we have a chance to also generate Happy to sit-down during the Berlin week 😃 |
|
But relying on extracted comments also is not the best solution as it will likely not contain 3rdparty licenses from code bundled in. Because often 3rdparty has removed all comments from code.
Sure :) |
Summary
Do not extract comments (that depends on regex) but correctly export BOM from packages used.
Checklist