Robert Dailey wrote:

> On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 3:57 PM, Vladimir Prus <vladimir@codesourcery.com>wrote:
>
>>
>> No offense intended -- many people don't know, and there are alternatives.
>> Can
>> you please apply the attached, replace --layout=system with --layout=tagged
>> and try again? You should get the same results that --layout=system had in
>> 1.38.
>
>
> I was not offended. I was actually joking about it, but it's hard to express
> that through text.
>
> It is not a bug -- system layout was changed on the purpose and will stay
>> this
>> way. It's just everybody has different requirements and desired naming.
>
>
> What exactly was it changed to?

It was changed to not adding anything to the name (not even "mt" or "d), except
that on Unix, version number is added at the end -- after ".so" extension, and
a symlink without version number is created.

> I have *never* found a library that used a
> naming convention that boost uses. I also have yet to find someone that
> actually likes the mangled boost library names. There is no practical reason
> to use mangled names as far as I'm concerned.

On Unix, or on Windows? On Unix you are right, and --layout=system in 1.39
produces names that use the same convention as every other library. On Windows,
I have no idea.

> The only thing that I can think of that the extra mangling would address is
> side-by-side installations of boost. For example, someone could have 1.38
> and 1.39 installed together on the same system and library files will
> coexist, and not be overwritten.
>
> Anyway, thank you for the patch. I will try it out when I get home in a few
> hours.

Let me know if it works.