[Bioperl-l] "progress": useful changes vs. "shiny new thingie"
bix at sendu.me.uk
Thu Nov 16 13:14:12 EST 2006
Brian Osborne wrote:
> So a package like bioperl-ext, normally requiring a C compiler and
> make/nmake, now no longer needs make/nmake? I don't recall this coming up in
> our discussions...
I'm sure you'd still need compiler tools to do compilation. I wasn't
sure what to say about bioperl-ext in the docs, so I didn't change
anything. bioperl-ext isn't my concern (see the thread where I was
deciding which packages needed a unified release), so I'll not be trying
to change it over to Build.PL
More information about the Bioperl-l