IIRC, think we used links because it was the easiest way to keep track of
the files so that stand alone dcqtp(for antechamber) and sander dcqtp would
work well together, while letting us easily update the AMBER tree from our
own tree, but please correct me if I'm wrong. I think this was the best way
we could think of to handle this, but I'm sure we'd be open to suggestions
if anyone has a better idea. I think the links are the easiest way though,
as we can just copy the whole tree over and link to the files AMBER needs,
it just causes some confusion for managing the tree. Please, let me know
what you guys think and I'll talk to my group about it.
Seth
On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 1:14 PM, David A. Case <case.biomaps.rutgers.edu>wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 26, 2008, Ross Walker wrote:
> >
> > > A minor note: the "nab5" directory is outdated, and may well be
> > > inconsistent with stuff in amber10/amber11. I think you should *not*
> > > have nab5 available via CVS -- it is just asking for trouble. And I
> > > don't think anyone needs it anyway.
> >
> > It is there because there were a load of links in amber11/src/semantics
> to
> > ../../../nab5/semantics/ directory. I didn't know whether to just move
> the
> > real files over here or keep the links. If we move these files across
> then
> > we don't need the nab5 tree there - the same with dcqtp - should we keep
> the
> > links for that or move it all into the amber11 tree?
>
> The links to nab5 (in both amber10 and amber11, I suspect), can be moved
> over (i.e. so we don't need the nab5 tree). The dcqtp stuff is more
> complex...we need to get a better agreement with the QTP folks about how
> to handle this code.
>
> ...dave
>
>
>
Received on Sun Sep 28 2008 - 05:08:08 PDT
