@Taylor.Chris
This is very strange.
(for example) That's why I have several devices packaged with SOT23 , and I have a package for each device.
Under normal conditions, a 3D model associated with a footprint would be enough, and this footprint associated with all devices that use SOT23, but library management has always been an issue since eagle. Lots of ways to do the same thing, deluded information and strange dependencies.
The problem here is that I've already tried to create a new device, and even so it always conflicts with what's already in the library and I can't delete it because it's already being used in other projects here at the university.
I understand that you want to make a manager compatible with the eagle libraries.
But maybe it was better to redesign the library system from Creation, to editing, and even import components from other libraries, increasingly common with sites like https://componentsearchengine.com/, https://www.snapeda. with/ etc etc.
And have a tool that converts old libraries to your "new format".
Right now even the names the components have are weird.
Devices have a name, packages have a technology dependent name, a technology inside a library is referred to as a package, it's a real mess.
I feel that things have or already had a purpose to be like this, but from what I see in the videos and tutorials this workflow has never passed to users, and it seems to me that there are huge layers of adaptations to have compatibility between some features, variables and software versions.