The Snow-Fort format is included in the survey at <https://github.com/pre-srfi/scheme-metadata-files>. Most existing Scheme package managers use a metadata format similar to it. They just use slightly different field names and syntax to encode similar information.
To my knowledge none of them has the most important aspect of Snow which I mentioned, of being a file-structure agnostic format. That's not just a matter of renaming fields.
I agree that flexible file naming is a good idea. Elsewhere in this thread, Jakub also posted in favor of it.
The problem is how to do it. It can be easily brute-forced by listing each library and its file name separately. That works well for small libraries, but not that well for bit ones. A generic rewriting system would handle this problem as well as other, related ones. No-one has designed one yet, so we don't have a good grasp of how simple or complex it would be; should make a prototype before deciding.
Apart from this, compatibility with the existing package managers would be important. To some extent, we may be able to convince their maintainers to support a new generic format (including flexible filenames). If compatibility is desired, libraries targeting those package managers would have to conform to their expected filename layout, also adding Snow-Fort style metadata with a mapping of those file names.
