FR-PLG-1…-12 — no plugin host exists #16

New Issue

2026-09-05T16:20:07Z

dtourolle commented

2026-09-05 16:20:07 +00:00

No plugin host exists. Nineteen of §3.10's requirements have no implementation of any kind.

Untagged: FR-PLG-1, -1a, -2a, -2b, -2c, -3, -3a, -4, -4a, -5, -5a, -5b, -5c, -6, -6a, -7, -9, -10, -11, -12.

What is absent

No crate loads anything at runtime: no manifest reader, no WASM or Lua engine, no registry, no signature check, no install path, no capability grant, no per-plugin failure ledger. declared/mod.rs says as much in its own documentation — the operation format is "not a plugin directory read at startup".

What is not absent

FR-PLG-2 and FR-PLG-2d are built. What is missing is not the format; it is everything that would let somebody who is not in this repository use it.

Blocked

On #15 — the §3.10 / §7 contradiction. Nothing here should be built while the register says both that this is deferred and that it is specified.
On #17 — D16, plugin licensing, which must be answered before an ecosystem exists because a term introduced later cannot be applied to plugins already written.

Filed as one ticket rather than nineteen deliberately: they are a single subsystem, and splitting them would put nineteen rows in the tracker for work that cannot start.

See docs/outstanding.md §1.

No plugin host exists. Nineteen of §3.10's requirements have no implementation of any kind. **Untagged:** FR-PLG-1, -1a, -2a, -2b, -2c, -3, -3a, -4, -4a, -5, -5a, -5b, -5c, -6, -6a, -7, -9, -10, -11, -12. ## What is absent No crate loads anything at runtime: no manifest reader, no WASM or Lua engine, no registry, no signature check, no install path, no capability grant, no per-plugin failure ledger. `declared/mod.rs` says as much in its own documentation — the operation format is "not a plugin directory read at startup". ## What is not absent FR-PLG-2 and FR-PLG-2d are built. What is missing is not the format; it is **everything that would let somebody who is not in this repository use it**. ## Blocked - On #15 — the §3.10 / §7 contradiction. Nothing here should be built while the register says both that this is deferred and that it is specified. - On #17 — D16, plugin licensing, which must be answered *before* an ecosystem exists because a term introduced later cannot be applied to plugins already written. Filed as one ticket rather than nineteen deliberately: they are a single subsystem, and splitting them would put nineteen rows in the tracker for work that cannot start. See `docs/outstanding.md` §1.

dtourolle added the unmet-requirement size:L plugins blocked labels 2026-09-05 16:20:07 +00:00

dtourolle referenced this issue

2026-09-05 16:20:08 +00:00

D16 — Decide plugin licensing before the format is published as stable #17

dtourolle referenced this issue

2026-09-05 16:20:49 +00:00

§3.10 vs §7 — the register says the plugin API is both deferred and specified #15

dtourolle referenced this issue

2026-09-05 16:20:49 +00:00

D16 — Decide plugin licensing before the format is published as stable #17

dtourolle added the post-v1 label 2026-09-19 10:19:44 +00:00

dtourolle commented

2026-09-19 10:19:45 +00:00

§3.10 is post-v1 as of 2026-09-19 (1da91b7): every clause carries (post-v1) and is outside the coverage count. This stays open as the post-v1 epic; nothing in v1 waits on it, and it is no longer an unmet requirement.

§3.10 is post-v1 as of 2026-09-19 (1da91b7): every clause carries `(post-v1)` and is outside the coverage count. This stays open as the post-v1 epic; nothing in v1 waits on it, and it is no longer an unmet requirement.

dtourolle removed the unmet-requirement label 2026-09-19 10:19:55 +00:00

Sign in to join this conversation.

1 Participants

Notifications

Due Date

No due date set.

Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: dtourolle/DarkRoom#16