>> I think your examples make me think it would be premature to go in that direction.
Well, if you consider it as a proposal for the library manifest – yes, I agree. I look at it mostly as an experimentation to be able to make better real proposal on the library manifest format.

I am fine with keeping it minimal just for modules for now if this is easier.
I still think the library name (or whatever else unique string) there will be useful.


From: Daniel Ruoso <daniel_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2023 05:14
To: Olga Arkhipova <olgaark_at_microsoft.com>
Cc: sg15_at_[hidden]
Subject: Re: [SG15] Proposal for module metadata format to be used by the std library and others

On Wed, Dec 13, 2023, 02:17 Olga Arkhipova <olgaark_at_[hidden]<mailto:olgaark_at_[hidden]>> wrote:
Looks like there is not much difference between library manifest and module metadata currently. So I think it should not be much harm in threat it as a library manifest v0, we can always ignore fields later if we decide otherwise.

I think your examples make me think it would be premature to go in that direction.

There are some folks discussing overall package management, and while I wholeheartedly agree this is a direction we should go, I don't think we should block modules on that.

So I'm leaning towards focusing on module metadata for now, knowing that the wider package management will either refer to this file or embed the same data in the future.

Daniel