Re: [boost] Encoding address-model in library names

Subject: Re: [boost] Encoding address-model in library names
From: Peter Dimov (lists_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-07-05 22:52:08

Stefan Seefeld wrote:
> On 05.07.2017 18:22, Peter Dimov via Boost wrote:
> > Stefan Seefeld wrote:
> >
> >> Why not build separate 32-bit and 64-bit installers, as lots of other 
> >> applications do ?
> >
> > Why does this matter?
>
> Because they could use distinct installation prefixes to avoid conflicts.

By the same logic, you could use distinct installation prefixes for 
debug/release. One of these does not even need an installer.

Also, you could use distinct installation prefixes for different toolsets, 
or for different Boost releases.

As I said, if you don't use --layout=versioned, this change would seem 
inexplicable. If you do, it's a straightforward extension, we just encode 
one more property in the name, one that should have been added in 2005.

As I also said, if you don't use --layout=versioned, you're unaffected.

(I've conservatively left --layout=tagged unchanged, because I'm not 
familiar with its real-world uses.)