[Bioperl-l] (no subject)

Paul Boutros paul.boutros at utoronto.ca
Wed Feb 8 01:38:42 UTC 2006

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.



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. 


Roger Hall 

Technical Director 

MidSouth Bioinformatics Center 

University of Arkansas at Little Rock 

(501) 569-8074 


More information about the Bioperl-l mailing list