On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 11:37 PM, Gavin Lambert via Boost-users <email@example.com> wrote:The naming change was intentional to allow 32-bit and 64-bit libraries to be built in one pass and to live in the same output directory.
The latter is a common deployment requirement on Windows when shipping both 32-bit and 64-bit executables, which previously required workarounds such as using custom build ids or moving files to separate directories, and also required building Boost twice with different options.Hello Gavin,I don't doubt this is intentional but was puzzles me is the apparent lack of backwards compatibility. When breaking changes like these are introduced, I would normally expect some kind of switch to temporarily restore old behavior to give people a chance to adopt. Don't get me wrong, but this doesn't feel quite 'Boost' to me. I am currently trying to work with a manual rename and switch of as much autolink magick as possible. See how that rolls.