[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: about autodocktools package


Bin Zhang wrote:

> On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 1:47 AM, Francesco Pietra <chiendarret@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi:
>> Package "autodocktools" for amd6a is only available for sid. As an aid
>> to autodock (which is on the amd64 lenny repositories) I tried to
>> install it by downloading packages for sid and using dpkg.
> You should not install sid binary package on lenny.
> Maybe you can build a lenny package using  autodocktools source
> package from sid.

The package installs fine, it is only a dependency not listed that should be listed, to
mgltools-geomutils, if I am not erroneous. So that should be installed manually. This is
long fixed in the packaging svn, just there was no reupload with the latest version of the
mgltools performed, yet.

>> People doing computational chemistry can't keep updated with the
>> latest amd64 because fundamental, non-graphical, number-crunching
>> parallelized codes would not run. Even if I tried the installation of
>> autodocktools on a secondary amd 64 machines where graphics is
>> available, also the "fundamental" parallelized codes are installed to
>> carry out preliminary setting of files for the main machine. So, we
>> are left without the gui for autodock.
>> This is a recurrent problem. I believe that for science it would be
>> better to provide quasi-static compilations (as some developers do,
>> see for example Chimera as one of the most successful examples.)
>> Unless help comes, I am in the situation of a couple of years ago,
>> when I was at etch and the above stuff was for lenny and i had to
>> renounce to autodock. Now, I I have again to renounce to autodock.

I fail to understand what you mean, here. Being swamped with things to do, I had hoped for
  a new official release of the mgltools against which to synchronise rather than against
the svn. But with users of the package now surfacing, I should indeed prepare an upload
now. Please expect it over the weekend.



Reply to: