[Bioperl-l] BerkeleyDB required for t/Registry.t

[Chris Fields]

...of course, Brian also has a point; maybe we should not require either
DB_File or BerkeleyDB.  BTW, the tests don't fail if they aren't installed;
they just are skipped over, which is perfectly fine since the modules
wouldn't be required anyway.  

Christopher Fields
Postdoctoral Researcher - Switzer Lab
Dept. of Biochemistry
University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign 


> -----Original Message-----
> From: bioperl-l-bounces at lists.open-bio.org [mailto:bioperl-l-
> bounces at lists.open-bio.org] On Behalf Of Chris Fields
> Sent: Monday, September 25, 2006 12:58 PM
> To: n.haigh at sheffield.ac.uk; Bioperl-l at lists.open-bio.org
> Subject: Re: [Bioperl-l] BerkeleyDB required for t/Registry.t
> 
> I think BerkeleyDB should be added since it covers more recent versions of
> BDB.
> 
> Christopher Fields
> Postdoctoral Researcher - Switzer Lab
> Dept. of Biochemistry
> University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: bioperl-l-bounces at lists.open-bio.org [mailto:bioperl-l-
> > bounces at lists.open-bio.org] On Behalf Of Nathan Haigh
> > Sent: Monday, September 25, 2006 11:27 AM
> > To: Bioperl-l at lists.open-bio.org
> > Subject: [Bioperl-l] BerkeleyDB required for t/Registry.t
> >
> > In t/Registry.t there is both a "require DB_File" and "require
> > BerkeleyDB", however, there is no mention of BerkeleyDB as being a
> > prerequisite of any type in Makefile.PL, has this just slipped through
> > the next or is there another reason?
> >
> > Some of these tests failed because I didn't have BerkeleyDB installed -
> > I did have DB_File though.
> >
> > Cheers
> > Nath
> > _______________________________________________
> > Bioperl-l mailing list
> > Bioperl-l at lists.open-bio.org
> > http://lists.open-bio.org/mailman/listinfo/bioperl-l
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Bioperl-l mailing list
> Bioperl-l at lists.open-bio.org
> http://lists.open-bio.org/mailman/listinfo/bioperl-l