You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
My proposed changes to generate_sbom.py is the following:
Find the entry pip/_vendor/vendor.txt in the pip wheel archive.
Read the content, parse the requirements into names and versions.
Ensure all entries are represented as packages in the SBOM with a pip DEPENDS_ON <package> relationship.
This approach lets the license identifiers be specified in the SBOM like other packages but then would raise an error if pip is upgraded with a difference in vendored dependencies or versions allowing the reviewer to acknowledge any changes.
Bug report
Bug description:
Part of #112302
Currently pip's package entry in the SBOM is quite simple, including only itself but not all the vendored projects and their licenses/IDs. See comment from @hroncok on DPO on why this is problematic: https://discuss.python.org/t/create-and-distribute-software-bill-of-materials-sbom-for-python-artifacts/39293/24
My proposed changes to
generate_sbom.py
is the following:pip/_vendor/vendor.txt
in the pip wheel archive.pip DEPENDS_ON <package>
relationship.This approach lets the license identifiers be specified in the SBOM like other packages but then would raise an error if pip is upgraded with a difference in vendored dependencies or versions allowing the reviewer to acknowledge any changes.
CPython versions tested on:
CPython main branch
Operating systems tested on:
No response
Linked PRs
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: