Morten Linderud

The wording is copied from the `rpm` definition and several other definitions has the same wording. I just read it as "should be normalized". https://github.com/package-url/purl-spec/blob/master/PURL-TYPES.rst#rpm

@pombredanne That is confusing. `apk` was not originally for `openwrt`, neither in implementation nor in the spec notes here. What is the mixing issue you are refering to?

The Alpine Package Format predates android by.. a decade? Google choosing a conflicting name is unfortunate.

~~@pombredanne `openwrt` is planning on deprecating `opkg` in favour of `apk`. Thus we do not need to consider the `openwrt` package format in the future.~~ I see this point has...

I've read the Debian discussion and I don't think I agree with lamby and would prefer having a `src` qualifier to go along with `pkg`, but considering this was decided...

> Apart from the how we express this, you agree that it actually makes sense if we define a way to specify package sources and also use abuild srcpkg as...

@vivekkoya I've written up a minimal implementation of a nfs storage pool. Please do help me test :) https://github.com/lxc/incus/pull/2025

@Mic92 any progress on this? I tried looking at implementing support for TPM keyfiles directly, but I suspect utilizing `age-tpm-plugin` is just an overall better approach.

> in other cases this is a problem and basically violation of the age license This is trivially solved by using [REUSE](https://reuse.software/). I don't think the license is the main...

`CurveSM2P256` is only a reserved field in the TPM 2 specifications. There are currently no reference implementation for these and no TPMs currently in production support this.