[Bioperl-l] "progress": useful changes vs. "shiny new thingie"
cjfields at uiuc.edu
Wed Nov 15 17:33:26 EST 2006
> Aaron J Mackey/PharmRD/GSK wrote on 11/15/2006 01:29:30 PM:
> > For one, the Bio::DB::GFF Makefile.PL is independent (yet
> triggered by
> > the main Makefile.PL) such that users can choose whether to
> test the
> > install vs. a live database or not.
> The Makefile.PL in Bio/DB? As far as I can tell, it achieves
> no such functionality. Letting the user choose to do live
> database tests was a function of the main Makefile.PL, which
> I have carried over to the new Build.PL. (And made it better
> in the process.)
Scott Cain also indicated the Bio/DB Makefile.PL and MANIFEST files were not
> > For three, there's certainly a lot more that I can't remember right
> > now.
> Please try and remember. I spent a lot of time trying to make
> sure that Build.PL does everything Makefile.PL did, but much
> much better.
> Thank you,
We can always reinstate the Makefile.PL if things blow up; I don't think
they will, but that's what CVS is good for. I haven't had any problems on
WinXP or Mac OS X yet beyond the pre-req error message Brian pointed out
(and scripts seem to install fine on both OS's). Personally, I would have
liked to wait until after the 1.5.2 final release to avoid any confusion and
documentation changes, but that's not my call.
We do need to let Scott and Lincoln in on these changes (they only know
about the removal of the Bio/DB Makefile.PL). I think various install
scripts look for a Makefile.PL, so if it isn't there things will tank on
their end. We also need to post this everywhere possible in very big
neon-colored letters (with fireworks and so on), since most users are used
to 'perl Makefile.PL; make; make install'.
Postdoctoral Researcher - Switzer Lab
Dept. of Biochemistry
University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign
More information about the Bioperl-l