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

Chris Fields cjfields at uiuc.edu
Thu Nov 16 12:58:14 EST 2006


> --snip--
> >> 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
> >   
> 
> Chris,
> 
> 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.
> 
> Nath

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.

Christopher Fields
Postdoctoral Researcher - Switzer Lab
Dept. of Biochemistry
University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign 

 



More information about the Bioperl-l mailing list