Replies: 1 comment
-
|
Related: #423 Either resolute or ubuntu-26.04 make sense to me, but alpine-3.23.4 is crazy. I know for Ubuntu, there are "point releases" like 24.04.4, that AFAIK are just a point in time when the install media was recreated with updates preinstalled. There's no difference between packages for Ubuntu 24.04.3 and packages for Ubuntu 24.04.4. They use the same versioning and are stored in the same apt repositories. Alpine 3.23.4 is a "minor release" and AFAIK it's the same thing as an Ubuntu point release. Alpine calls v3.23 a "branch" and when you access packages, it's by branch, not by minor release. If you check the security advisories published by the Ubuntu or Alpine projects, you'll see that Ubuntu publishes advisories for 26.04 LTS (resolute) and Alpine publishes advisories for 3.23-main and 3.23-community.
I don't see how it couldn't be synchronized. The distro qualifier is about as important as the version number for Linux packages for the purpose of vulnerabilities. A similar package name+version combination in Ubuntu 24.04 may not be affected by vulnerabilities that do affect Ubuntu 24.10. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
-
distroqualifier is widely used (see below for examples) but isn't strictly specified.Specs overview:
purlspec doesn't specify howdistroqualifier should be used: https://packageurl.org/docs/purl/specificationapknamespace section doesn't either. Though it replacesnamespacewithvendorfor the post-pkg:apk/part. Similarly RPMI've checked what is found in
distroqualifier in Syft SBOM generator and OSV database.Question: should
distroqualifier be synchronized among the uses or it's ok to be different for some (unnamed) reason?Reasoning: some users want to match the purls from the different sources but
distroseems to be the major qualifier that doesn't match.Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions