On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 11:37 PM, Gavin Lambert via Boost-users <boost-users@lists.boost.org> wrote:

The naming change was intentional to allow 32-bit and 64-bit libraries to be built in one pass and to live in the same output directory.

The latter is a common deployment requirement on Windows when shipping both 32-bit and 64-bit executables, which previously required workarounds such as using custom build ids or moving files to separate directories, and also required building Boost twice with different options.

Hello Gavin,

I don't doubt this is intentional but was puzzles me is the apparent lack of backwards compatibility. When breaking changes like these are introduced, I would normally expect some kind of switch to temporarily restore old behavior to give people a chance to adopt. Don't get me wrong, but this doesn't feel quite 'Boost' to me. I am currently trying to work with a manual rename and switch of as much autolink magick as possible. See how that rolls.