"Arthur A. Gleckler" <xxxxxx@speechcode.com> writes:

> On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 8:33 AM Marc Feeley - feeley at iro.umontreal.ca (via srfi-discuss list) <xxxxxx@srfi.schemers.org> wrote:
>
>  If github.com/scheme-requests-for-implementation was the only place
>  where libraries can be found then yes this convention would be fine.
>  But there are other libraries than SRFIs and other “consumers” of the
>  sample implementations than humans (e.g. package installers).
>
>  Given the special status of the SRFI web site in setting Scheme
>  standards, I would expect that it follow a standard layout for
>  libraries so that it is easier to remotely access the sample
>  implementations without making a special case for each one, or for
>  SRFIs (vs. other sites where libraries can be found).
>
> If the goal is to adopt a convention that holds not only in the SRFI
> repos, but also elsewhere, then we'll need to bring more people into
> the discussion, i.e. the people who run Akku, Snow, and perhaps the
> Racket world. But I doubt that we'll be able to get such wide
> agreement. Establishing a convention that holds for SRFI would at
> least be a step in the right direction.

That is a misconception about Akku. R6RS and R7RS libraries are
self-describing, so Akku does not require any particular repository
layout. You just need to use any of the common file extensions: .scm,
.sls, .sld, and so on. You can run "akku scan" in a repository to verify
what libraries it finds. Most packages that are published to akkuscm.org
actually come from git repositories that were not prepared whatsoever
for Akku.

Best regards,

--
Göran Weinholt   | https://weinholt.se/
Debian Developer | 73 de SA6CJK