[Bioperl-l] "progress": useful changes vs. "shiny new thingie"
cjfields at uiuc.edu
Thu Nov 16 13:41:56 EST 2006
> 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...
> Brian O.
The makefile setup for bioperl-ext is much more complex than for the others,
so I don't know how that would be handled using Module::Build. I tried it
earlier on before the RCs on Mac OS X and it installed fine, but Inline
complained when running other tests so I tossed it. I don't think it ever
worked under Windows using nmake, unless you're using CygWin/GNU make.
I believe the Build file must use make/nmake somehow, so there must be a way
to compile C code included with the distribution. I just haven't had time
to invesitgate yet.
Postdoctoral Researcher - Switzer Lab
Dept. of Biochemistry
University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign
More information about the Bioperl-l