[Bioperl-l] Priorities for a bioperl-1.6 release

Nathan S Haigh n.haigh at sheffield.ac.uk
Wed Feb 13 07:07:16 EST 2008

Hash: SHA1

I remember a conversion about how/if to split bioperl modules up in the past. If I remember rightly, there was talk of splitting all modules up and
then creating a CPAN bundle for the core modules. I don't know if this make the admin really complex, but this allows people to install just those
modules they require rather than the whole bioperl-core.

For example, if I write a script or a module that wants to make use of BioPerl's SeqIO abilities, the end user has to download and install a load of
modules that he/she may never use. Instead, it would be nicer to simply install SeqIO and it's dependecies. If I want to install all the BioPerl core,
I can install a CPAN bundle.

Just a thought.

Dave Messina wrote:
> I agree with Chris that the next BioPerl release should be 1.6.
> Shunting abandoned, experimental, and less-developed code to "bioperl-dev"
> would be extremely beneficial. As Chris stated, not only does it reduce the
> number of modules needing full test coverage, but the most important core
> modules are the ones most likely to have good test coverage already. And it
> would make BioPerl easier to grok for newcomers, too, which is always nice.
> I've made a first go at dividing the current bioperl core along these lines
> here:
> http://www.bioperl.org/wiki/Proposed_1.6_core_modules
> It's a very rough cut, so those with more familiarity with the bioperl
> corpus, please go in and rearrange as you see fit.
> Dave
> _______________________________________________
> Bioperl-l mailing list
> Bioperl-l at lists.open-bio.org
> http://lists.open-bio.org/mailman/listinfo/bioperl-l

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


More information about the Bioperl-l mailing list