Daniel James wrote:
If we have a full package system, it might want to use a different file format.
I already have a full package system and it uses meta/libraries.json to generate the library list because those files already exist. :-)
I'm not sure why a package manager would need to know when a library was first released.
It doesn't. I just looked at http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_57_0/ and tried to replicate it. It has First Release, so I assumed that people are interested in it, so I included it. It didn't occur to me that this field is present because the script uses it to generate the historical lists, not because it's of particular interest for users. I was somewhat misled by the fact that functional/meta/libraries.json does have boost-version for all functional/ libraries. And since you're the author of that, I assumed that this is the golden reference for the format, and that therefore boost-version is a required field, and it's been omitted from all other files by mistake. But the mistake was, apparently, mine. :-) Incidentally, some libraries have "std": [ "tr1" ], and some have "std-proposal": false, "std-tr1": false. (Actually, now that I grepped, only Assert has the latter. I suppose "std" is correct and Assert is using an outdated schema?)