Michel André said: >>> 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?
I enabled the staging portion of the Jamfile on Friday, I believe. It does produce unique names for all variants. William E. Kempf [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
