[Bioperl-l] Bioperl partitioning (was Re: SVN and ...Re: Perltidy)

Hilmar Lapp hlapp at gmx.net
Tue Jun 19 17:57:54 EDT 2007


On Jun 19, 2007, at 5:15 PM, Chris Fields wrote:

> There should also be a consensus between the core devs on this; I
> don't see it going very far w/o Lincoln, Jason, Hilmar, etc. voicing
> their opinions

The problem I have increasingly had with BioPerl (aside from the fact  
that it's written in Perl ;) is the plethora of dependencies I need  
to install, not the number of modules.

But every time I've been told that that's what Perl is all about, and  
I should shut up and install the bundle. Idiosyncratically I don't  
like bundles that clutter up my hard disk with stuff I'll never use,  
and in this sense if BioPerl is divided into 10 packages I will have  
to think about each one whether I need it, and do a separate CVS  
checkout - and regular update - of each one (though granted, I  
believe there are ways the multiple checkout and update thing can be  
taken care of).

In reality, this may be a rapidly disappearing trait though of those  
who have grown up in a time when they proudly spent all their savings  
to buy that new computer because it had a 20MB hard disk, compared to  
the two 360k floppy drives the previous one had.

So don't ask me, just don't make it too hard for the dinosaurs.

> as it will directly impact projects which rely on core
> functionality (GBrowse/GMOD, bioperl-db, etc).

Well, I hope there are ways to limit that?

> I also agree with George that this should be postponed until after  
> svn issues are taken care of.

I agree entirely. Please don't throw this in the same bin or tie one  
to the other. The migration is neither easier nor faster nor better  
testable with a partitioned BioPerl.

	-hilmar
-- 
===========================================================
: Hilmar Lapp  -:-  Durham, NC  -:-  hlapp at gmx dot net :
===========================================================







More information about the Bioperl-l mailing list