On Mon 09 Nov 2020 10:42:33 PM +03, Lulu wrote:

> I'm all in favour of a standardised, minimal way of expressing SRFI
> support, or maybe even general features (eg 'this implementation has
> native threads') for each implementation. It's worth noting that this
> won't be possible for unmaintained implementations, but fortunately their
> respective feature sets aren't likely to change any time soon. :-)

But it could be possible if such information is not gleaned from their
tar files but from a URL.

The metadata consumer could be pointed to such a URL, which could be
hosted anywhere, and does not need the intervention of an absent maintainer.

Even if it was gleaned from their tar files, unmaintained
implementations could be unarchived and then rearchived with the
requisite metadata, so future queries of it could succeed, and so that
ways of getting metadata could be consistent across implementations.

 --Sergey