[Bioperl-l] No version numbers on bioperl pms.

[Jason Stajich]

% perldoc -m Bio::DB::GFF | grep Id

There are only explict versions when we do a release. 1.2.2 is the latest
stable release.

Did you download the code from CVS, a release from the website,
from http://bioperl.org/SRC?



On Wed, 30 Jul 2003, Philip MacMenamin wrote:

> OK, most of them have $Id$ at the start. (Although Graphics.pm does not).
> However, if it is there, what do you do with it? When I perldoc it, I see no
> version number.
>
> To be honest, all I want to know is the versions of the Bio::DB::GFF
> Bio::Graphics that would have been downloaded in the last few days. (ie I
> assume the most recent version)
>
> Thanks.
>
> On Wednesday 30 July 2003 02:59 pm, you wrote:
> > you can also look at the
> > $Id$
> > in almost every file which list the Revision of the particular instance of
> > the code you have.
> >
> > -jason
> >
> > On Wed, 30 Jul 2003, Philip MacMenamin wrote:
> > > Hi Jason,
> > >
> > > OK, thats fine. However, the overall version number is not what I need.
> > >
> > > I would like to know what version of Bio::DB::GFF i have, and what
> > > version of Bio::Graphics. Because at the moment I just guessed a $VERSION
> > > number and hacked it into them, and hoped for the best. And, although
> > > GMOD installs, it doesnt work properly. And, its probably nothing to do
> > > with the version I guessed, but I really dont know.
> > >
> > > It just seems that it might be straight forward to do things the same way
> > > as in the rest of perl (from what I can see of the rest of perl anyway),
> > > to make things easier for people like me, OR, to put some comment in the
> > > code at the point were the VERSION number usually is, (like line 2 or
> > > somthing) saying this is version such and such, but we dont use $VERSION
> > > numbers for reason X.
> > >
> > > So, if anyone knows the version number of Bio::DB::GF, and Bio::Graphics
> > > that I downloaded in the last couple of days is, I would be much obliged
> > > to them if they let me know (so I dont have to just guess it).
> > >
> > > Thanks again,
> > > Philip.
> > >
> > > On Wednesday 30 July 2003 01:05 pm, you wrote:
> > > > We're aware.
> > > >
> > > > We've implemented a new system
> > > > Bio::Root::Version
> > > > which will now make the overall version number of package available.
> > > >
> > > > This is only for current CVS bioperl-live so will be in bioperl 1.4
> > > >
> > > > -jason
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, 30 Jul 2003, philip wrote:
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > I assume that you are aware that your BioPerl pms are not versioned.
> > > > >
> > > > > This seems unusual to me, however I am no perl head.
> > > > >
> > > > > BUT, it can cause problems (which took me a LONG time to understand,
> > > > > see previous comment about my lack of perl cool points) when I was
> > > > > trying to set up GMOD. What was happening that when Lincolns
> > > > > Makefile.PL was demanding such and such version of GFF etc, makemaker
> > > > > was going off, and looking for such and such version number, was
> > > > > getting nothing, and saying that I didnt have GFF at all. The newest
> > > > > makemaker does not do this, it gives out about not understanding the
> > > > > version number or something.
> > > > >
> > > > > But, I don't know, I have looked at some other ordinary pms and they
> > > > > all seem to have VERSION numbers. So, I just thought that I would
> > > > > post this up here.
> > > > >
> > > > > All the best,
> > > > > Philip.
> > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > Bioperl-l mailing list
> > > > > Bioperl-l at portal.open-bio.org
> > > > > http://portal.open-bio.org/mailman/listinfo/bioperl-l
>
>

--
Jason Stajich
Duke University
jason at cgt.mc.duke.edu