Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] Default variants on windows
From: Vladimir Prus (vladimir_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-04-11 02:31:29

Vladimir Prus wrote:

> Per:
> we have a problem that the default set of libraries
> build on Windows does not match autolink defaults, which
> causes confusion. In that issue, John say that the only
> sensible solution for Windows is to build all possible
> variants by default (IIRC, a total of 6). I would like
> other Windows developers to comment if that is sensible
> solution. In particular, is it best to build all possible
> variants that user might need, or build just the variants
> that autolink needs by default, so that user can build other
> later.
> Note that I can add arbitrary explanation messages into
> the build process -- both to warn the user that a scary
> pile of things will be built, and to warn the user that only
> couple of variants will be built.

Thanks everybody for the feedback. I think that conclusions are:

1. Autolink defaults to static linking, and it's best if
default build of Boost match autolink default, so I'll change
Jamroot to build static libraries by default on windows.

2. IDE default is:

runtime-link=dynamic, threading=multi, variant=(debug|release)

and it's good to match IDE too. Therefore, on windows we'll build

    link=static runtime-link=dynamic threading=multi variant=debug

Anybody thinks we should also build

    link=static runtime-link=dynamic threading=multi variant=release

? It seems reasonable if IDE creates release variant as well. However,
if many users switch to static runtime anyway, maybe we should not waste
time building two variants by default if user will switch away to something

- Volodya

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