Yes, I was referring to the online docs.
On 06/04/18 05:19, Greg Landrum wrote:
Tim: where did you see the mention of cmake 2.6?
The docs that are part of the source tree have already been updated to
mention that cmake 3.1 or newer is required:
https://github.com/rdkit/rdkit/blob/master/Docs/
Tim: where did you see the mention of cmake 2.6?
The docs that are part of the source tree have already been updated to
mention that cmake 3.1 or newer is required:
https://github.com/rdkit/rdkit/blob/master/Docs/Book/Install.md
maybe you're looking at the online docs? I don't update those for the
Yes; cmake can also come from conda or from one of the redhat-supplied
developer tool sets.
On Thu, 5 Apr 2018 at 17:57, Tim Dudgeon wrote:
> So that means its not easy to build on a up to date centos (and maybe most
> other Red Hat based) distros?
> You would need to install a newer version of
So that means its not easy to build on a up to date centos (and maybe
most other Red Hat based) distros?
You would need to install a newer version of cmake from some other
source e.g https://cmake.org/ ?
On 05/04/18 16:52, Greg Landrum wrote:
Yeah, thats another change that has been made. I w
Yeah, thats another change that has been made. I will update the docs.
Thanks for pointing out the oversight
-greg
On Thu, 5 Apr 2018 at 17:30, Tim Dudgeon wrote:
> Greg,
>
> Does this explain problems I'm seeing with building on Centos:
>
> From the current docs:
> cmake. You need version 2.6
Greg,
Does this explain problems I'm seeing with building on Centos:
From the current docs:
cmake. You need version 2.6 (or more recent)
With a current centos7 distro after a `yum install cmake`
# cmake --version
cmake version 2.8.12.2
When you build from current master branch you get this er
This change has now been made.
The RDKit master branch (the default one in github) has been moved to
modern c++.
The previous status of master is captured here:
https://github.com/rdkit/rdkit/tree/legacy/master
Hopefully this doesn't cause horrible problems for anyone with active
forks, but I figu
Yes, looks good :-). And the good thing with git is (if you very uncertain
about the outcome), you always can make a test run by copying the whole
directory, test all things with the copy, and if it goes horribly wrong,
just delete the copy.
Markus
On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 8:46 AM, Greg Landrum
Thanks for raising this Markus. It had been on my list of things to look
into for a while and I had been kind of dreading it.[1]
I did a bit of googling and experimentation and it looks like this approach
works well:
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/5956300/merging-two-very-divergent-branches-u
Have you tried a merge (after branching the master to something like
master-test-merge and then merge modern_cxx) ? How horrible does it look?
It might be quiet okay. Or do you really have a lot of changes in the
current master you don't have/want to have in modern_cxx and the future
master. And we
On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 11:27 AM, Markus Sitzmann
wrote:
> Hi Greg,
>
> > Concretely what this means in github is that the current master branch
> will be renamed to legacy and the modern_cxx branch will be renamed to
> master.
>
> I hope you are not actually just renaming it - although I am not
Hi Greg,
> Concretely what this means in github is that the current master branch
will be renamed to legacy and the modern_cxx branch will be renamed to
master.
I hope you are not actually just renaming it - although I am not affected
personally, that might be a call for trouble because it inval
NOTE: If you don't work with the RDKit at the C++ level or build the code
yourself from source, you probably don't need to read this email.
TL;DR: When we do the beta for the 2018.03.1 release we're going to switch
the C++ backend to use modern C++ (=C++11). For people who can't switch to
use that
13 matches
Mail list logo
