Am So., 25. Apr. 2021 um 14:35 Uhr schrieb Lassi Kortela <xxxxxx@lassi.io>:

Storing portability info in package metadata is also reasonable, but
that is even more coarse-grained than the library level thing :)

Which is not necessarily a bad thing. It's really the package manager that should know about it: different Scheme implementations may have different package dependencies.

No-one declared anything; it just ended up as its own island with the
biggest community, and is now debating how many remnants of Scheme to keep.

Despite the name change from PLT Scheme to Racket, it is still a Scheme and will probably remain so.

Given that quite a number of SRFI ideas have their origins in Racket, I would say that Racket's island is just a peninsula. :)

The words "portable" and "standard" don't have universally agreed upon
meanings; e.g. some people are adamant that de facto standards are much
more important than de jure standards; other people strongly think the
opposite.

Is there anything like a de jure standard apart from IEEE Scheme? Even the RnRS aren't.

Anyway, I agree that these points aren't very important. What we need is a package manager and a repository (in the literal, not necessarily in the git sense), distributed or not, with portable Scheme libraries. The package manager should be library-format agnostic but allow for library format plugins. This way, different library formats can be accepted, be it R6RS libraries, R7RS libraries, Racket modules, or even plain R5RS programs. Meta-information has to be provided outside of the libraries because library dependencies cannot be solely determined from the library forms (think of `eval`!).