Re: [boost] [release] 1.64.0 Delayed because of Microsoft (version numbers)

Subject: Re: [boost] [release] 1.64.0 Delayed because of Microsoft (version numbers)
From: Gavin Lambert (gavinl_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-03-20 22:45:20

On 20/03/2017 03:52, Paul A. Bristow wrote:
>> I am in favor of option 2. - as the least worst.
>
> +1
>
> NAME == $(PlatformToolsetVersion)

+1 from me too.

> Option 4 (141 and 14.10) -
> build bootstrap would use bootstrap.bat vc141
> build of source would use b2 toolset=msvc-14.10
> build would generat libraries of the format libboost_NAME_vc141-OPTIONS-1_
> 64.lib
> config would auto-link libraries of the same format
> (4-a is the same as 2-a)

This also makes a certain amount of sense but I worry that 14.10 is 
potentially more confusing as it seems inconsistent with the other 
values, despite being technically more "correct".  As John Maddock noted 
it's easy to get wrong at present even when you know what's correct.

> PS What happened to plans to change the name to include the address-model?
> (So that all the library files can be dumped into one folder).
>
> Although I am now quite happy using two folders that I have called /win32 and /x64  (both fairly daft names but with at least a tiny
> amount of logic), it requires a cunning boost.props file to make it work invisibly, and a more complex build .bat to push the two
> variants into the right folder.
>
> Isn't the whole (excellent) idea of auto-linking to make it simple?

There is a way to do that currently using the build id:
   http://stackoverflow.com/a/42408982/43534

I agree that it would be nice if it happened automatically, though.