[Bioperl-l] "progress": useful changes vs. "shiny new thingie"
cjfields at uiuc.edu
Thu Nov 16 12:58:14 EST 2006
> >> Yes, it surely needs to happen before 1.6. As suggested here and
> >> originally in the other thread, 1.5.2 can be the
> transition release
> >> with old Makefile.PL and Build.PL as well (set up to not overwrite
> >> Makefile.PL).
> > So far, we have these modes of installation:
> > 1) Direct installation using CPAN -> INSTALL
> > 2) Regular distribution (either from the Bioperl website or CPAN)
> > using 'make/nmake' ->INSTALL, INSTALL.WIN
> > 3) CVS (bioperl-live) using make/nmake -> INSTALL, INSTALL.WIN
> Do you ever have a problem with nmake when doing an install
> from a regular distribution or CVS? I'm sure I used to get an
> nmake problem which wouldn't let you proceed further - might
> have been "nmake test"
> and it might be a while back now.
I haven't had problems beyond the '-w' paranoia and 'Subroutine x redefined
at' warnings, which is an ActivePerl issue. 'nmake test' works for me
(that's what I have been using on all the RC's and using bioperl-live). I
think 'Build test' also uses nmake, so if that works nmake should also work.
I have used both an old version (1.5) and the recent VC++ nmake version
(8.00.50727.42) w/o problems.
Postdoctoral Researcher - Switzer Lab
Dept. of Biochemistry
University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign
More information about the Bioperl-l