which cctbx version is recommended now?
Hi, we need to pick a version of cctbx for CCP4 for use in phaser and DIALS. The latest logs at cci.lbl.gov/cctbx_build/show_error_summary.cgi?build_tag=2014_10_05_2205 show in all builds: [Errno 2] No such file or directory Traceback (most recent call last): ImportError: __import__("boost_python_meta_ext"): No module named boost_python_meta_ext Is it better to pick older version? Marcin
On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 8:24 AM, Marcin Wojdyr
Hi, we need to pick a version of cctbx for CCP4 for use in phaser and DIALS. The latest logs at cci.lbl.gov/cctbx_build/show_error_summary.cgi?build_tag=2014_10_05_2205 show in all builds:
[Errno 2] No such file or directory Traceback (most recent call last): ImportError: __import__("boost_python_meta_ext"): No module named boost_python_meta_ext
This was an attempt to do something clever that backfired - it's fixed now. There are still some errors in the current test logs that I need to look at, and some issues with our build machines, but otherwise everything should be reasonably stable. Is it better to pick older version?
In this case it might be worth going back a few days. I was hoping to have a new "release" (a meaningless term in the context of CCTBX, but apparently we're expected to do this) online soon, but the 32-bit Windows build is currently MIA and we need to get that working first. However, for CCP4's purposes I think everything you use is relatively stable (but check with the DIALS developers too). It's mostly modules like mmtbx that are unstable, but I don't think Phaser uses that. -Nat
Thanks Nat, everything seems to work for us. I see we have some scripts with the same names as in Phenix, which may make simultaneous use of Phenix and CCP4 harder. We have cctbx.python and iotbx.lattice_symmetry (both required by xia2) and phaser.ensembler and phaser.sculptor. I haven't heard any complaints from users, so I think we'll leave it as it is. But if it was causing some problems we could find a workaround, at least for the first two wrappers. Marcin
On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 11:34 AM, Marcin Wojdyr
I see we have some scripts with the same names as in Phenix, which may make simultaneous use of Phenix and CCP4 harder. We have cctbx.python and iotbx.lattice_symmetry (both required by xia2) and phaser.ensembler and phaser.sculptor. I haven't heard any complaints from users, so I think we'll leave it as it is. But if it was causing some problems we could find a workaround, at least for the first two wrappers.
I don't think this will be a big deal - officially, any command included in Phenix that doesn't start with "phenix" is at best only partially supported and definitely not advertised to [Phenix] users. And some of these commands go by multiple names anyway. As long as you delete all of the dispatchers with "phenix" in them, we should be fine. Anyone who does trip over this (external developers using CCTBX) is probably capable enough to figure it out. -Nat
participants (2)
-
Marcin Wojdyr -
Nathaniel Echols