[Bioperl-l] http://www.bioperl.org/wiki/Bptutorial.pl

[Chris Fields]

So basically have a minimal set of installation instructions in CVS and a
more detailed installation instructions on the wiki.  Sounds reasonable
enough but bioperl is a pretty complex distribution (lots of additional
modules required, platform-specific issues, so on).  Maybe we can come up
with a pared-down INSTALL file which combines the basic elements for
installing on UNIX/Windows/Mac/FreeBSD and points out dependencies.  

I still like the idea of just having a simple conversion from wiki->txt
direct from the web page (i.e. best of both worlds).

Chris

> -----Original Message-----
> From: bioperl-l-bounces at lists.open-bio.org [mailto:bioperl-l-
> bounces at lists.open-bio.org] On Behalf Of Sendu Bala
> Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2006 11:57 AM
> To: bioperl-l at lists.open-bio.org
> Subject: Re: [Bioperl-l] http://www.bioperl.org/wiki/Bptutorial.pl
> 
> Chris Fields wrote:
> > Sounds good to me.  I guess the tutorial (post-stripping)would be moved
> to
> > /scripts or /examples then?
> >
> > Also, what do we do about similar situation with other docs moved to the
> > wiki (INSTALL, INSTALL.WIN, etc)?  Should we have a placeholder file in
> the
> > distribution pointing out the wiki docs instead?
> 
> Imho, something like an installation document should be there in full so
> once you've downloaded you can install without reference to anything
> else. Also, an installation document could be considered specific to the
> release version. Which is to say, it never goes out of date even if new
> versions of bioperl are released with new installation instructions - it
> applies to the installation directory it is found in.
> 
> The wiki can have the latest installation instructions, and you don't
> have to worry about keeping things synced.
> _______________________________________________
> Bioperl-l mailing list
> Bioperl-l at lists.open-bio.org
> http://lists.open-bio.org/mailman/listinfo/bioperl-l