[Bioperl-l] (no subject)
paul.boutros at utoronto.ca
Tue Feb 7 20:38:42 EST 2006
I would definitely prefer a fully Perl-based implementation. For starters, I have not
been successful in compiling the Toolkit that contains netblast for some platforms (e.g.
AIX 5.2 w/gcc 4.0).
I haven't been following the discussion: is there some compelling reason to prefer a
netblast-based system that's come up recently? I'm guessing that adding a new non-perl
dependency would only be done if there was considerable justification for this type of
change, but I'm not clear from your message what that justification is.
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2006 20:46:44 -0600
From: "Roger Hall" <rahall2 at ualr.edu>
Subject: [Bioperl-l] RemoteBlast users - potentially major changes -
To: <bioperl-l at lists.open-bio.org>
Message-ID: <002001c62b90$bb9dbe00$4301a8c0 at LIBERAL>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To everyone who uses RemoteBlast.pm:
Would anyone object to RemoteBlast being rewritten in a way that requires
NCBI's blastcl3 executable?
Binary downloads of blastcl3 (column "netblast") are available for numerous
platforms at: http://ncbi.nih.gov/BLAST/download.shtml
Does anyone require or desire a "pure perl" implementation? If so, please
explain the advantage you see with such an implementation.
MidSouth Bioinformatics Center
University of Arkansas at Little Rock
More information about the Bioperl-l