[Bioperl-l] Wiki inconsistency?

Chris Fields cjfields at uiuc.edu
Thu Jan 24 15:58:25 EST 2008


Maybe Sendu can answer more specifically, but I believe the extra  
designation referred to the release candidate (of which bioperl-core  
was the only one with '102').  You definitely want the core package.   
The other ones with '100' are other bioperl-related distributions  
which require the core package but have additional functionality  
(BioSQL-related functions, wrapper modules, etc.).

chris

On Jan 24, 2008, at 1:36 PM, Ryan Golhar wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I haven't used Bioperl in a while but recently started using it.  I  
> was using 1.4.0 but see on the website that 1.5.2 has been  
> released.   If I click on the link for 1.5.2 (http://www.bioperl.org/wiki/Release_1.5.2 
> ), I see a two versions:
>
> bioperl-1.5.2_102
>
> and
>
> bioperl-1.5.2_100
>
> However, If I click on the Downloads link on the left toolbar, then  
> scroll down, I see 1.5.2 Developer Release.  The tar file here  
> points to  current_core_unstable.tar.gz.
>
> Is this supposed to be this way?  It seems a bit confusing.  I think  
> it might be appropriate to put all the download links in one  
> location...just my two cents...
>
> Ryan
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bioperl-l mailing list
> Bioperl-l at lists.open-bio.org
> http://lists.open-bio.org/mailman/listinfo/bioperl-l

Christopher Fields
Postdoctoral Researcher
Lab of Dr. Robert Switzer
Dept of Biochemistry
University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign





More information about the Bioperl-l mailing list