[Bioperl-l] BioPerl and Travis-CI

Peter Cock p.j.a.cock at googlemail.com
Fri Jul 27 11:03:05 EDT 2012


On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 3:58 PM, Fields, Christopher J
<cjfields at illinois.edu> wrote:
> On Jul 27, 2012, at 9:47 AM, Peter Cock wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 4:22 PM, Peter Cock <p.j.a.cock at googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> That's done now - except for the circular dependencies, and GD,
>>> which might be easy to solve if anyone knows what the error
>>> means - see commit message here:
>>> https://github.com/peterjc/bioperl-live/commit/905441ac09939be3368c14de38d04486c7e9849a
>>
>> Re: https://twitter.com/cjfields/status/228861370454638592
>> Not sure why you got GD to work when something very similar
>> had failed for me. Oh well - job done :)
>
> It was the lack of gdlib-config in the libgd2-xpm package, you need
> libgd2-xpm-dev.  One of the fun things about Debian packaging.

Ah - I should have guessed that.

>>> Would a single clean commit of the (current) .travis.yml file be
>>> preferable to the current series of commits? And you you want
>>> a pull request, or would you just merge/cherry-pick manually?
>>
>> Given all the churn between our revisions, personally I'd opt for
>> a single clean commit to bioperl/master - but your call.
>>
>> Peter
>
> Yep, about to merge it over.  It's working now, just need to
> whitelist master instead of travis after the merge.

I'd removed the whitelist altogether here:
https://github.com/peterjc/bioperl-live/commit/96dc5866f4406179353909c72d812623341c8fbd

My thinking was BioPerl seems to have multiple feature branches
under the official repo, so they should get tested too. You'd be
in a better position than me to judge what would work best for
BioPerl here.

Peter


More information about the Bioperl-l mailing list