Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] Library metadata
From: Ahmed Charles (acharles_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-02-23 19:09:58

---------------------------------------- > Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2014 14:55:51 +0000 > From: dnljms_at_[hidden] > To: boost_at_[hidden] > Subject: [boost] Library metadata > > Hi, > > I'm starting to add metadata to modules for updating the website, and > hopefully other uses in the future. I added the metadata to > Boost.Unordered and Boost.Functional to give you an idea of what this > will look like: > > > > > You can see several libraries listed in the Boost.Functional file. > I'll write some documentation soon, but it should be fairly easy to > understand. I basically took what was in the website library list and > split it up into modules. Quick summary of the fields: > > key - Used to be the website to identify each library. Don't change > it, or the website will think it's a new library. > boost-version - The version in which the library was released. > name - The name of the library. > authors - The authors of the library - will probably add a > 'maintainers' field later. > description - Library description - this is used in the library list, > so keep it short. > std-proposal - Is the library proposed for the standard. > std-tr1 - Is the library part of TR1. > category - The categories the library belongs to. one element for each > category. The documentation will include a list of available > categories. > documentation - Path to the documentation. > > The documentation field is optional. If it isn't included, it'll use > the default path: /libs/module-name/. If it is included, relative > paths are resolved relative to the module directory, absolute paths > from boost root - although I'd suggest you always use a path within > the module, and if there's only a single library in a module, use the > default path. > > This isn't the final format - I think the standards status fields > could do with an overhaul to support C++11 etc. You also don't need to > write the initial files yourself, I'll generate them and create pull > requests once this is settled. > > Let me know what you think. +1 on adding a maintainers field. On another note, did you consider JSON as a viable format or is there a strong reason to go with XML?

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at