@jmracek @dmach is the dnf team aware and what's your take on this?

@churchyard yes, we are aware.
@adelton is in touch with us. He does the prototyping, keeps us in the loop and drives discussions about how SWID work fits in the DNF stack.
There's most likely some work on our end, but I believe it's doable in given time frame.

As I noted in ML, the new metadata format should be open for discussion at rpm-ecosystem@lists.rpm.org and not be developed internally.

Let's not introduce yet another incompatibility between distributions (because SWID tags are supposed to make them more compatible).

Email explaining the goal and seeking guidance sent to rpm-ecosystem: http://lists.rpm.org/pipermail/rpm-ecosystem/2019-February/000711.html.

+1

After a week, there's only 1 vote. Can this please be added to Monday's meeting agenda?

I somehow missed this, but I'm +1 here. I won't be at the meeting, but I've been assisting @adelton getting the necessary bits into fedora-release.

Well, fedora-release now packages distro-level SWID tags that identify the Fedora version and edition. With this change proposal, we plan to add https://github.com/swidtags/rpm2swidtag to allow people to start generating SWID tags for packages installed on their systems or packages in dnf repositories that they might create.

Approved in today's FESCo meeting. Processing Change proposal as accepted.