SIP-4 (package.json) Discussion

[ritave]

This thread is meant to be a general place for open discussion concerning the state of SIP-4 (package.json).

The SIP proposes merging of the manifest and package.json to have one package file with definitions.

[BeroBurny]

It does not like the idea of making it as a SIP, and even less like the idea of deprecating snap.manifest.json.
Another way it is okay to have an option is to choose a preferred way of doing it.

[ritave]

You wouldn't be able to comment on it if it weren't a SIP. This the whole point of them - to get the community involved.

Can you expand why you don't like deprecating snap.manifest.json? Developers complain that the data desyncs between package.json and the manifest.

[tmpfs]

I have been working on a package registry backed by IPFS and the API naturally exposes all the data in package.json so having the snaps manifest data in package.json would make it easier to retrieve the manifest programmatically without needing to extract files from the tarball.

So my vote is to deprecate snap.manifest.json 👍

[ritave]

This is a cool project!

[eriknson]

Less files—less confusions

[ritave]

The MetaMask team decided to stay with snap.manifest.json for the for now, and so this SIP is being moved to Withdrawn.

Should we want to revisit this decision in the future, a new SIP will be created.