>> The Snow-Fort format is included in the survey at
>> <https://github.com/pre-srfi/scheme-metadata-files>. Most existing
>> Scheme package managers use a metadata format similar to it. They just
>> use slightly different field names and syntax to encode similar information.

> To my knowledge none of them has the most important aspect of Snow
> which I mentioned, of being a file-structure agnostic format.  That's not
> just a matter of renaming fields.

I agree that flexible file naming is a good idea. Elsewhere in this
thread, Jakub also posted in favor of it.

The problem is how to do it. It can be easily brute-forced by listing
each library and its file name separately. That works well for small
libraries, but not that well for bit ones. A generic rewriting system
would handle this problem as well as other, related ones. No-one has
designed one yet, so we don't have a good grasp of how simple or complex
it would be; should make a prototype before deciding.

Apart from this, compatibility with the existing package managers would
be important. To some extent, we may be able to convince their
maintainers to support a new generic format (including flexible
filenames). If compatibility is desired, libraries targeting those
package managers would have to conform to their expected filename
layout, also adding Snow-Fort style metadata with a mapping of those
file names.