> If it's any comfort to you, you aren't the first to be bewildered by Amber's i
nstallation procedure. I believe the reasons why it's this way are chiefly histo
rical - Amber is a complicated package that arose before install procedures from source became standardised.
This is true. When I started working on Amber in the Kollman lab at UCSF
(1990), distributions were made by copying a shared tree from DEC's VMS OS,
that in principle could have had anyone's experimental changes in it. For
example, earlier while at Berkeley, as a user I had to fix Amber code that
had an incomplete edit done to it.
Linux had not been heard of. Cray had its own weird OS, and no one could have
predicted that *nix would 'win' over VMS. In the absence of the standardized
build setups that we know today, I designed a 2-step install process for most
unixes and fortrans of the day that called for choosing a 'machine file'
and typing 'make install'. This was the ancestor of the current setup.
Bill
_______________________________________________
AMBER mailing list
AMBER.ambermd.org
http://lists.ambermd.org/mailman/listinfo/amber
Received on Wed Nov 09 2011 - 11:00:03 PST
