[Bioperl-l] Test overhaul complete

Nathan S. Haigh n.haigh at sheffield.ac.uk
Wed Jun 27 18:07:31 EDT 2007

Hash: SHA1

Chris Fields wrote:
> On Jun 27, 2007, at 4:25 PM, Nathan S. Haigh wrote:
>>> ...
>>> Is there much value in doing that? Does anyone want me to look into the
>>> feasibility of such a thing?
>> I think the value would be in other external modules being able to use
>> bioperl modules with more ease (not sure how many modules have, or
>> currently depend on bioperl) as they would depend on a single module,
>> rather than the whole package. However, how would the dependencies of
>> each module be handled? I'm clearly thinking aloud, but....Maybe this
>> would tease apart "cliques" of modules that are interdependent? and
>> could in themselves be shipped as bundles e.g. Bio::Graphics and have a
>> "master" bioperl bundle that installa all the bioperl modules.
> See my response to Sendu, and Steve Chervitz's original post and related
> thread:
> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lang.perl.bio.general/15315/focus=15315
> which pretty much covers the same ground.  I think at most 4-5 split
> 'cliques', including core, with the fewest possible dependencies in
> core.  If we do any of this, it prob. should wait until after an svn
> migration and bugzilla bug stomping unless there is a (well-argued)
> advantage to doing it now.
> chris

That's fine by me - or should I say, the best way forward - I was really
just thinking aloud :)

Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org


More information about the Bioperl-l mailing list