On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 6:41 PM Lassi Kortela <xxxxxx@lassi.io> wrote:
>
> >> 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.

Apologies, it seems the discussion is spread across multiple
threads.  I haven't caught up with all of them.

> 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.

Wow, I'm impressed you have so many libraries you can't list them
in a meta file :)

But this is not a problem that needs to be solved within the package
format.  The format is simple enough that it's easy to write a three
line shell script to generate the meta file from whatever file layout
you happen to be using.  Keep the format simple and augment it
with tools, so that it's easy to work with.

--
Alex