Re: [Boost-users] 32- and 64-bit builds on same machine

Subject: Re: [Boost-users] 32- and 64-bit builds on same machine
From: Andrew Holden (aholden_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-08-13 11:33:46

On Friday, August 13, 2010 11:10 AM, Johan Råde wrote:
>
> Thank you for a detailed answer.
> Your script contains several nice features that I will incorporate in my own script.
>
> I have always been using "stage" in my script. You use "install". What is the difference?

I've never really used stage, so I might get this wrong.

As I understand it, stage is designed to place the build results in the source tree. I think under a "stage" directory just under the top level.

"install" is designed to place the build results in a location that generally makes sense for the operating system.  In Unix, I believe it puts libraries and header files in /usr/local.  In Windows it defaults to C:\boost.  In either operating system, you can use "--prefix" to change this.

The structure of these directories is as follows:
C:\
+ boost
  + lib
  + include
    + boost-1_43
      + boost
        + all headers and subdirectories here

I must admit I don't know if "install" make any attempts to customize the include folder, or if it just copies every header file it can find.  Although I just found mpi and python folders when I know I told it no mpi or python, which suggests it just copies all header files.

I don't know if "stage" goes to the trouble of creating an include directory under its output directory.

If you still prefer stage, I believe it has an equivalent option to "--prefix".  The same rules should apply (32 and 64-bit variants need separate stage directories, different boost versions and toolsets can share the same stage directory).