The key word is BSD. There are some differences in the dynamic library
loading which we had to sort out early on. However, we are not
responsible for the binaries provided by FreeBSD itself. If you could
compile Open babel yourself from source and check whether the problem
remains, then it's a problem at our end. Given enough time of course I
could do this for you but well, that's not going to happen right now.
Regards,
- Noel
On 24 October 2014 13:03, Andrew Dalke <da...@dalkescientific.com> wrote:
> [Oops! Sent a version as direct email and not to the list. Sending again.]
>
> On Oct 24, 2014, at 12:05 PM, ftorazyne wrote:
>> Function doesn't check whether plugins loaded or not.
>> Which version of openbabel you use?
>
> It gives me a version number of 2.3.90 . The _openbabel.so has a timestamp of
> May of this year.
>
> However, the code snippets I just gave were from version control, so should
> be the most recent code there is.
>
> ("Should" because git confuses me. I assume that "git pull" updates my local
> files as well.)
>
> In any case, it doesn't matter. Earlier I asked you to run code which lists
> all of the available plugins before trying to set the "smi" format. Since all
> of the plugins were loaded, it shouldn't affect anything.
>
> Which is why I am so confused about why it's not working for you.
>
>
>
> Andrew
> da...@dalkescientific.com
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> OpenBabel-discuss mailing list
> OpenBabel-discuss@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openbabel-discuss
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
OpenBabel-discuss mailing list
OpenBabel-discuss@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openbabel-discuss
