Re: [AMBER-Developers] Should we add more troubleshooting to the Makefile?

From: Scott Brozell <>
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2017 14:56:49 -0500


On Tue, Feb 07, 2017 at 11:48:09AM -0500, Daniel Roe wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 10:26 PM, David Case <> wrote:
> >
> > 2. Given that Windows10 has a new and functional Linux subsystem, do
> > we need to continue to support the -cygwin, -wine and -windows options?
> I think I may have been the only person testing on cygwin, and I no
> longer have time to do this thoroughly. Unless someone else is testing
> we should probably remove that option. Ditto for the others if no one
> is testing them.

I have built with cygwin, but my record keeping is not up to
snuff on it; probably i built amber around the time i tested
dock 6.7 for release.

> > 3. Does anyone use -static?
> Not certain but it's a fairly standard option for builds to have.
> However, I'm not sure that it has been tested - Amber does now have a
> few libraries that go into $AMBERHOME/lib...

The last time i built with static was
  648 -rw-r--r-- 1 mpl 659106 Dec 14 2015 outrubypgi154static

Historically, static builds have been useful for portability,
performance, and testing/debugging. However, i doubt that we have
used static builds in those ways for some years.

In theory, the AMBERBUILDFLAGS hook could be a replacement for static,
but a glance at configure2 shows that that simple approach will encounter

In configure2 there are 4 if-statements amounting to ~30 lines and ~<10 more
lines so static is about 1% of its 3862 lines.

I agree that junk should be thrown out, and let's not forget that it
would still live in the repo, so on balance i'd vote for dumping it.
But maybe a better approach is to ping the reflector and ask users of
it to reply.


AMBER-Developers mailing list
Received on Tue Feb 07 2017 - 12:00:02 PST
Custom Search