[Bioperl-l] (no subject)

[Paul Boutros]

Hi Roger,

I would definitely prefer a fully Perl-based implementation.  For starters, I have not 
been successful in compiling the Toolkit that contains netblast for some platforms (e.g. 
AIX 5.2 w/gcc 4.0).

I haven't been following the discussion: is there some compelling reason to prefer a 
netblast-based system that's come up recently?  I'm guessing that adding a new non-perl 
dependency would only be done if there was considerable justification for this type of 
change, but I'm not clear from your message what that justification is.

Paul



------------------------------ 

Message: 12 
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2006 20:46:44 -0600 
From: "Roger Hall" <rahall2 at ualr.edu> 
Subject: [Bioperl-l] RemoteBlast users - potentially major changes - 
        please        reply 
To: <bioperl-l at lists.open-bio.org> 
Message-ID: <002001c62b90$bb9dbe00$4301a8c0 at LIBERAL> 
Content-Type: text/plain;        charset="us-ascii" 

To everyone who uses RemoteBlast.pm: 

Would anyone object to RemoteBlast being rewritten in a way that requires 
NCBI's blastcl3 executable? 

Binary downloads of blastcl3 (column "netblast") are available for numerous 
platforms at: http://ncbi.nih.gov/BLAST/download.shtml 

Does anyone require or desire a "pure perl" implementation? If so, please 
explain the advantage you see with such an implementation. 

Thanks! 
 

Roger Hall 

Technical Director 

MidSouth Bioinformatics Center 

University of Arkansas at Little Rock 

(501) 569-8074