>> Ok! Actually the only reason for me to want the old style is that it >> will take longer for me to adopt 1.30 and later because I would have to >> convince my CM guys to remake install and packaging, but thats more of a >> political hurdle than a technical one. So it's ok. The only nitpick is >> that maybe a version number in the dll name would seem good (not the lib >> name). > >This should be happening with the stage rule, though I haven't confirmed.
Ok! I built the current CVS in the beginning of this week and got an boost_thread.dll without version number. I didn't use boost.build v2 either so maybe there are some differences between the old an new jamfiles and bjam in this case, and it wasn't from the thread_dev branch. Will there also be different names for debug and release dlls? /Michel _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
