[Bioperl-l] "progress": useful changes vs. "shiny new thingie"

Stefan Kirov stefan.kirov at bms.com
Wed Nov 15 19:34:02 EST 2006


Maybe I will just reiterate myself. I think the idea is good, but timing
is bad.
Sendu, from purely socialogical point of view Makefile.PL should be
there. I bet that significant percent of the users would do cvs
checkout, type perl Makefile.PL and start cursing. Perhaps you would not
do this, but many of us do not read most of the docs, unless nothing
else works. As a result you would have confusion and frustration. 
Many people would google 'bioperl install' and come up with old docs and
wonder why it does not work.
In a perfect world it would work.
Just my thoughts.
Stefan

----- Original Message -----
From: Chris Fields <cjfields at uiuc.edu>
Date: Wednesday, November 15, 2006 7:01 pm
Subject: Re: [Bioperl-l] "progress": useful changes vs. "shiny new thingie"

> Brian,
> 
> I think he means the actual releases or the 1.5.2 branch, not CVS.  
> 
> Sendu, I am seeing a general consensus towards not using 
> Module::Build just
> now.  Lincoln, Aaron, and Brian all seem to want to wait; Hilmar 
> and I also
> had stated previously that this should probably wait until after 1.5.2
> (which you seemed to agree with).  I think we are all for the idea 
> of moving
> forward, but it's a lot to impose just prior to a release (not to 
> mentionThanksgiving here!).  
> 
> I think the old Makefile.PL is still in the 1.5.2 branch.  So maybe we
> should stick with that for now (i.e. not change over to 
> Module::Build on the
> 1.5.2 branch).  The install script fix that Brian committed to 
> Makefile.PLin CVS HEAD prior to removal could be merged to branch-
> 1.5.2.  
> 
> We could leave the Module::Build stuff in CVS for the next release 
> to work
> out the bugs.  I'm not sure whether we can have both Build.PL and
> Makefile.PL in CVS HEAD, but I don't see why not.  Wouldn't 'perl 
> Build.PL'just overwrite the old Makefile.PL anyway?
> 
> chris
> 
> Christopher Fields
> Postdoctoral Researcher - Switzer Lab
> Dept. of Biochemistry
> University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Brian Osborne [mailto:bosborne11 at verizon.net] 
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2006 5:32 PM
> > To: Sendu Bala; Chris Fields
> > Cc: aaron.j.mackey at gsk.com; bioperl-l
> > Subject: Re: [Bioperl-l] "progress": useful changes vs. 
> > "shiny new thingie"
> > 
> > Sendu,
> > 
> > This is not right. I just removed all the build stuff, 
> > Makefile* and Build*, and did an update. There's no 
> > Makefile.PL, it's not part of the distribution, there is Build.PL.
> > 
> > Brian O.
> > 
> > 
> > On 11/15/06 6:08 PM, "Sendu Bala" <bix at sendu.me.uk> wrote:
> > 
> > > exactly that; Makefile.PL will be part of the distributions 
> (having 
> > > been generated by Build.PL).
> > 
> > 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Bioperl-l mailing list
> Bioperl-l at lists.open-bio.org
> http://lists.open-bio.org/mailman/listinfo/bioperl-l
> 


More information about the Bioperl-l mailing list