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.)
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk