cjfields at uiuc.edu
Thu Jun 1 13:46:35 EDT 2006
I understand your point, though I think the wiki gives us an opportunity add
helpful links and use markup to help clarify things a bit more. I have seen
several distributions which don't have INSTALL files, just simple README
with very basic instructions (Bio::ASN1::EntrezGene is one).
I've been reluctant to mess around with the wiki Install pages too much more
b/c of syncing problems, just as you mentioned. I will look into thing a
bit more to see if there's an easier way to go about converting wiki->text.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian Osborne [mailto:osborne1 at optonline.net]
> Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2006 11:46 AM
> To: Chris Fields; 'Mauricio Herrera Cuadra'
> Cc: bioperl-l at lists.open-bio.org; 'Jay Hannah'
> Subject: Re: [Bioperl-l] http://www.bioperl.org/wiki/Bptutorial.pl
> I think the INSTALL* files should be in the package, this is the de facto
> convention for 99% of the packages I've ever seen. Then any Wiki page just
> links to the file in CVS.
> Personally I don't like the idea of maintaining a Wiki page and a file
> both say essentially the same thing (this is what has happened with the
> INSTALL and INSTALL.WIN files). I've spent plenty of time merging
> text and removing files that contained these redundancies so it's
> unfortunate to see them appear anew, sooner or later they'll get out of
> despite best intentions. The most likely cause will be someone other than
> the person who created the initial duplication (and promised to maintain
> both) making a change in one of the two files.
> Brian O.
> On 6/1/06 12:20 PM, "Chris Fields" <cjfields at uiuc.edu> wrote:
> > Also, what do we do about similar situation with other docs moved to the
> > wiki (INSTALL, INSTALL.WIN, etc)? Should we have a placeholder file in
> > distribution pointing out the wiki docs instead?
More information about the Bioperl-l