[Dock-fans] Dock 6.2 installation check failure

[Woods, David M. Dr.]

Scott,

  Thanks for looking at this.  This build is on a x86_64 system running Red Hat Linux, although I've compiled and linked Dock as a 32-bit application based on some of the other messages on the list.

Dave

-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Brozell [mailto:sbrozell at scripps.edu]
Sent: Monday, October 27, 2008 5:32 PM
To: Woods, David M. Dr.
Cc: dock-fans at docking.org
Subject: Re: [Dock-fans] Dock 6.2 installation check failure

Hi,

On Mon, 27 Oct 2008, Woods, David M. Dr. wrote:

> I'm installing Dock 6.2 for a user and after following the build instructions, I ran the "make test".  Several possible failures were reported, but after considering the KNOWN_FAILURES and differences in the tails of numbers, I still have one failure I can't resolve.
>
> I see the following in primary_secondary_score/secondary2_comformers.mol2.dif:
>
> 1734c1734
> < ########## Contact Score:          -23.
> ---
> > ########## Contact Score:          -22.
> 1748c1748
> <       8 O1         21.    7.   59. O.2     1  <0>        -0.
> ---
> >       8 O1         21.    8.   58. O.2     1  <0>        -0.
> 1754c1754
> <      14 H6         22.    9.   58. H       1  <0>         0.
> ---
> >      14 H6         21.    7.   59. H       1  <0>         0.
> 1773c1773
> < ########## Contact Score:          -22.
> ---
> > ########## Contact Score:            0.
> 1780,1793c1780,1793
> <       1 C1         23.   11.   58. C.3     1  <0>        -0.
> <       2 C2         23.   10.   59. C.2     1  <0>        -0.
> <       3 C3         24.   11.   61. C.2     1  <0>        -0.
> <       4 C4         23.   10.   62. C.2     1  <0>        -0.
> <       5 S1         22.    9.   61. S.3     1  <0>         0.
> <       6 C5         22.    9.   60. C.2     1  <0>        -0.
> <       7 C6         22.    8.   59. C.2     1  <0>         0.
> <       8 O1         21.    8.   58. O.2     1  <0>        -0.
> <       9 H1         24.   12.   58. H       1  <0>         0.
> <      10 H2         24.   10.   57. H       1  <0>         0.
> <      11 H3         22.   11.   58. H       1  <0>         0.
> <      12 H4         24.   12.   60. H       1  <0>         0.
> <      13 H5         24.   11.   63. H       1  <0>         0.
> <      14 H6         21.    7.   59. H       1  <0>         0.
> ---
> >       1 C1         22.   12.   62. C.3     1  <0>        -0.
> >       2 C2         21.   11.   62. C.2     1  <0>        -0.
> >       3 C3         21.   11.   60. C.2     1  <0>        -0.
> >       4 C4         21.   10.   60. C.2     1  <0>        -0.
> >       5 S1         20.    9.   61. S.3     1  <0>         0.
> >       6 C5         20.   10.   62. C.2     1  <0>        -0.
> >       7 C6         20.   10.   64. C.2     1  <0>         0.
> >       8 O1         19.    9.   64. O.2     1  <0>        -0.

> >      10 H2         21.   13.   63. H       1  <0>         0.
> >      11 H3         22.   12.   63. H       1  <0>         0.
> >      12 H4         22.   11.   60. H       1  <0>         0.
> >      13 H5         21.    9.   59. H       1  <0>         0.
> >      14 H6         20.   11.   64. H       1  <0>         0.
>
> Do these indicate a problem with the installation, and if so, suggested steps for troubleshooting would be appreciated.
>

It is likely that the installation is ok.
Similar diffs with this particular test have been reported before on a
'PC with cygwin':
http://blur.compbio.ucsf.edu/pipermail/dock-fans/2008-March/001488.html
What are your platform details ?

This one has general comments
http://blur.compbio.ucsf.edu/pipermail/dock-fans/2008-May/001596.html

and this one indicates the .save platform
http://blur.compbio.ucsf.edu/pipermail/dock-fans/2008-May/001583.html

Scott