ziglibs / repository Goto Github PK

This is required for more complex packages that depend on each other. My proposal is to do the following format change:

{
  "dependencies": {
    "${import name 1}": "${package name 1}",
    "${import name 2}": "${package name 2}"
  }
}

This allows package managers to create a correct DAG out of the packages and build a correct std.build.Pkg structure. Import name is the name that needs to get passed to @import(…), package name is the file name in the repository without the file extension.

Example:

{
  "author": "truemedian",
  "description": "A WebSocket 1.3 library for Zig",
  "git": "https://github.com/truemedian/wz",
  "root_file": "/src/main.zig",
  "dependencies": {
    "hzzp": "hzzp"
  },
  "tags": [
    "networking"
  ]
}

any project listing would need at the very least:

• link to project page
• link to documentation
• option to non-git repositories

Zig package manager has been merged for a while, as for this project, I suggest we add a new option module: bool to indicate whether it has module support, something like this:

{
  "author": "vrischmann",
  "tags": [
    "database"
  ],
  "git": "https://github.com/vrischmann/zig-sqlite",
  "root_file": "/sqlite.zig",
  "description": "zig-sqlite is a small wrapper around sqlite's C API, making it easier to use with Zig. ",
  "license": "mit",
  "updated_at": "2023-01-28T06:15:38Z",
  "homepage": ""
  "module": false   // newly add field
}

I'm using a private repository similar to this for my own "package manager" (it's just a way to quickly add submodules). The current format allows these two configurations:

"parser-toolkit": {
  "git": "https://github.com/MasterQ32/parser-toolkit",
  "pkg_file": "src/main.zig"
},
"sdl": {
  "git": "https://github.com/MasterQ32/SDL.zig",
  "sdk_file": "Sdk.zig"
}

The pkg_file item can be set for repositories that export a single zig package (like zig-args), the sdk_file can be used for packages that use a build time package (like SDL.zig).

What's currently not covered is repos that export more than one package (like SDL.zig). What we could do for those is either using a sdk_file or this:

"sdl": {
  "git": "https://github.com/MasterQ32/SDL.zig",
  "sdk_file": "Sdk.zig",
  "packages": {
    "native": "src/binding/sdl.zig",
    "wrapper": "src/wrapper/sdl.zig"
  }
}

This does not cover any dependencies yet, so what i'm experimenting around with is this structure:

"ziglyph": {
  "git": "https://github.com/jecolon/ziglyph",
  "pkg_file": "src/ziglyph.zig"
},
"zigstr": {
  "git": "https://github.com/jecolon/zigstr",
  "pkg_file": "src/Zigstr.zig",
  "dependencies": [
    "ziglyph"
  ]
}

This does not properly encode multi-package-repos yet, neither as a dependency nor as source package. The dependencies field could use a string-formatted variant like "sdl/native" or similar, while multi-package repos could use a { "file": "", "dependencies": [ … ] } structure for the packages items.

Any thoughts?

@mattnite and @nektro already have designed a similar system, so i'd appreciate some input on these thoughts. Am i missing some important data or could this actually be enough to model a zig package structure (excluding any kind of versions)

Might be nice to add a license field to the package json.

Something super simple like:

"license": "MIT",
"license_url": "https://github.com/ziglibs/repository/blob/main/LICENSE"

Where LICENSE is one of predefined text, for instance one of PUBDOMAIN | MIT | BSD-3C | BSD-2C | ISC | APACHE-2.0 | GPL2 | GPL3 | ... | CUSTOM
Where CUSTOM could be a catch all for "not a common one; user should investigate further".