On 05.07.2017 18:32, Vinnie Falco via Boost wrote:
On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 3:30 PM, Stefan Seefeld via Boost <boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:
Because they could use distinct installation prefixes to avoid conflicts. As a developer working primarily on Windows who regularly builds both 32-bit and 64-bit address models, its a hassle to have different installation prefixes. There's no "standard" place for link libraries on Windows so I have to define BOOST_ROOT in my environment. There's no provision for having two different BOOST_LIBRARYDIR one for 32-bit and one for 64-bit. I end up having to manually edit my project file every time.
That's unfortunate indeed.
Have you encountered this problem on Windows when trying to build the same application using both 32-bit and 64-bit boost variations? I'm very rarely building on Windows, and almost never using Visual Studio. My main development platform is Linux, and I regularly cross-compile or build (remotely, in a VM, etc.) on a range of other platforms (OSX, ARM, etc.).
This may explain the cultural difference... :-) Stefan -- ...ich hab' noch einen Koffer in Berlin...