[Bioperl-l] Splits again
bix at sendu.me.uk
Thu Jun 28 02:38:48 EDT 2007
Jason Stajich wrote:
> So you are suggesting ou are suggesting 800+ individual CPAN modules?
> I don't think that is a good idea. Why would you split up
> Bio::Seq::RichSeq and Bio::Seq into two separate packages for
> example? I think if you really want to move away from the monolithic
> install it has to be more logical by function - but I am not that
> optimistic that this is going to actually be easier for people.
> Maybe I'm misunderstanding.
> What are the arguments for separating things -- to make it so people
> aren't scared by the number of modules so they'll code? It seems
> like some people just want it to be installed and run scripts - does
> having them install dozens of modules work. Do we need to consider
> people how much this would suck if someone can't use CPAN or
> Module::Builder to automate dependancy tracking installation? How
> does it work when modules are deprecated?
See my upcoming reply to Chris. Briefly, if the only change is to the
dist action of Build.PL, we can make a single archive of all modules
available to non-CPAN users, and individual modules available to CPAN
users. No problems.
> Also - the main point I wanted to make - Can I suggest we spend a
> little time discussing what it will take to get a stable release for
> the current code as it stands (bioperl-live and bioperl-run)? It
> seems like we really need to do this first so that we have a stable
> release that can be followed by CVS -> SVN migration, then consider
> major changes to the repository structure and release packaging, and
> potential deprecation and incorporation of other modules.
I'd recommend that a 'stable' release shouldn't happen until we resolve
all the missing tests and bugzilla bugs (because I think the opportunity
should be taken to have it stable both in terms of interface /and/
bugs). Which is a lot of work.
> I assume there is no chance that we'd have a 1.6 candidate by BOSC
> next month?
More information about the Bioperl-l