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

Checkout ORT vs syft for generating SBOM #239

Open
2 tasks done
linuxluigi opened this issue Feb 6, 2023 · 1 comment
Open
2 tasks done

Checkout ORT vs syft for generating SBOM #239

linuxluigi opened this issue Feb 6, 2023 · 1 comment
Assignees
Labels
proposal Feature request

Comments

@linuxluigi
Copy link
Collaborator

Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.

No known problem.

Describe the solution you'd like

Currently this project auto generated SBOM with syft. After attemting the SBOM Devroom on the fosdem I'm currious if ORT will be generating a better SBOM than syft.
Ort claims, that it will include not just software dependencies from the package manager, it will also include warpped libs like from C++. Also, is has an Open Source Policy Checker included.
If this works as promised, we could run ORT on each PR for OpenSource licencing check and generate the SBOM with it.

Describe alternatives you've considered

Keep using syft

Search

  • I did search for other open and closed issues before opening this.

Code of Conduct

  • I agree to follow this project's Code of Conduct

Additional context

No response

@linuxluigi linuxluigi added the proposal Feature request label Feb 6, 2023
@brumhard
Copy link
Contributor

I think this is a topic where a lot of stuff is happening currently. E.g. github released sbom export a few days ago: https://github.blog/2023-03-28-introducing-self-service-sboms/. Tbh I don't know much about it so I don't have much opinion on it.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
proposal Feature request
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants