While I am supportive of making it easier to install published Scheme
libraries on a variety of Scheme implementations, I think the case for
SRFIs is slightly different. Using the sample implementation directly
should only be the second-best solution. SRFIs should ship with Scheme
implementations and the sample implementation should not be copied
verbatim but adapted for the maximal functionality or efficiency on a
particular implementation. While I understand that many SRFIs have to
be installed by users from the official SRFI repository using the
sample implementation, if this is advocated as being particularly
simple, it may seem that this is like the designed way to use a SRFI.
I fear that it impedes the native adaption of SRFIs.

Am Sa., 15. Okt. 2022 um 18:16 Uhr schrieb Lassi Kortela <xxxxxx@lassi.io>:
>
> P.S. The problems we have with library filename mapping are a re-run of
> the problems Linux and BSD distros have been experiencing with
> filesystem layout for nearly three decades. Various proposals for
> standardizing file locations have been made over the years. None of them
> became universally accepted. In the end, the only system that is
> convenient for distributors is if all pathnames used by a program are
> configurable.
>
> Unix provides mounts and symlinks as tools that users, sysadmins, and
> distributors can use to work around breakage due to clashing
> conventions. I'm almost certain that we'll end up needing similar tools
> in Scheme, and for the same reasons.
>