Re: [AMBER-Developers] amber10/netcdf

From: Ben Roberts <>
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 12:09:18 -0500

case wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 14, 2010, Jason Swails wrote:
>> I think it'd probably be a good idea to allow users to download 1.2,
>> if for no other reason than to complete their amber10 package (and
>> they can also install ambertools 1.3, of course, and use that one).
> Done. See the "downloads" section at
>> Ultimately, I think we should separate ambertools and amber
>> (AMBERTOOLSHOME, AMBERHOME), as their releases will not necessarily be
>> synchronized, and those upgrading ambertools with each release will
>> not necessarily be upgrading amber as well.
> This can be discussed, but I'd prefer to make it a moot point by:
> a. completely merging the distributions, OR
> b. avoiding the "incompatibility" issues that came up this time. The current
> "problem" arose partly because there were giant changes in AmberTools, but
> mostly because we(I) was too lazy to squash all the problems.
> In the future, my idea is that the tree name (e.g. amber10, amber11) would
> change on an "Amber" release, and we would take care that any intermediate
> releases of AmberTools were compatible with the most recent Amber source tree.
> This is more work on our part, but gives a lot of simplification for users
> if we can pull it off.
> ...dac

My two cents' worth: increasingly AmberTools and Amber share common
components, such as SQM. I fear that splitting them up completely would
in the end be more trouble than it's worth.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but is the reason AmberTools and Amber are
somewhat separate because they're made available on different terms? If
so, folding them into one project may also cause headaches, but of a
different kind.

I guess what I'd hope to see is that the most recent publicly available
AmberTools never gets so far ahead of the most recent publicly available
Amber that the two become incompatible. Which, I guess, would mean that
upgrades of AmberTools between Amber releases would be minor and
especially involve no substantial changes to core components.

Which, I guess, is pretty much what Dave said.

Dr. Benjamin P. Roberts
Postdoctoral Research Associate
Quantum Theory Project
University of Florida
2301 New Physics Building #92
PO Box 118435
Gainesville FL 32611-8435
Phone: +1 352 392 6712
Cell:  +1 352 222 3677
Member of the Royal Australian Chemical Institute
and of the American Chemical Society
AMBER-Developers mailing list
Received on Fri Jan 15 2010 - 09:30:05 PST
Custom Search