On 05.07.2017 17:16, Peter Dimov via Boost wrote:
I have prepared the pull requests necessary to encode the address-model (32 or 64) in the library names, which allows placing the 32/64 libraries into the same stage/install directory, and building with address-model=32,64 in one go.
Vinnie Falco originally wrote:
I'd like to avoid a lengthy debate, and if no one wants to do it just provide me with working code for accomplishing it and I'll submit a pull request.
Given how intrusive a change that is, I'd like to understand a bit better what change he had in mind precisely, and what the effect of the below PRs are. Specifically, is this an optional change, or a compulsory one ? Would the change mean that all boost libraries would henceforth contain the address-model in their names, and thus that all boost users would have to adjust their own build instructions ? What problem is this supposed to solve ? How frequently do users need both address-models on the same deployment platform (and in the same path) ?
These are
https://github.com/boostorg/boost/pull/147
and
https://github.com/boostorg/config/pull/159
This being a Serious Change, the prudent thing to do is to wait out 1.65, then proceed.
On the other hand, experience shows that this kind of change is only tested when a release goes out anyway; delaying it for four more months would not help much.
Therefore, I'm calling for opinions; would people want this to go into 1.65? Into 1.66? Not at all?
I really don't think a change of that nature should go in without discussion. Furthermore, my answer to the last question depends on whether this is an optional feature or a compulsory change. In case of the latter, I'm against the change. Stefan -- ...ich hab' noch einen Koffer in Berlin...