[Bioperl-l] dependencies in Makefile.PL
Nathan S. Haigh
n.haigh at sheffield.ac.uk
Tue Sep 26 07:29:09 UTC 2006
Chris Fields wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: bioperl-l-bounces at lists.open-bio.org [mailto:bioperl-l-
>> bounces at lists.open-bio.org] On Behalf Of Hilmar Lapp
>> Sent: Monday, September 25, 2006 3:34 PM
>> To: Sendu Bala
>> Cc: bioperl-l at bioperl.org
>> Subject: Re: [Bioperl-l] dependencies in Makefile.PL
>> Everything that contains compiled code, or depends on stuff that
>> contains compiled code.
>> E.g., GD and friends, all expat-depending XML readers/writers
> There are binary versions of libgd and expat available for ActivePerl and
> Win32 (which tends to be the most troublesome platform). If you install
> GD.pm and XML::SAX::Expat using PPM, precompiled binary versions of both are
> installed along with the perl modules. It's not as easy to update to the
> most current versions, but I have GD, expat, libxml2, and a few others, all
> of which work wonderfully.
I haven't had any recent problems with totally clean installs of WinXP
and Perl 5.8 - I assume I'd get failed tests if something was amiss here?
> The really tough ones are the bioperl-ext XS modules. I never managed to
> get that working on Windows (and I don't plan on killing myself over trying
> to get it running anytime soon). It does work under Cygwin, though, or at
> least the install docs indicate so.
> Christopher Fields
> Postdoctoral Researcher - Switzer Lab
> Dept. of Biochemistry
> University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign
>> On Sep 25, 2006, at 2:17 PM, Sendu Bala wrote:
>>> Sendu Bala wrote:
>>>> Nathan Haigh wrote:
>>>>> File::Spec is mentioned in the PREREQ_PM section of Makefile.PL
>>>>> but is
>>>>> not mentioned in %packages - which is correct? Is File::Spec no
>>>>> IO::Scalar is now commented out of %packages, but is still
>>>>> included in
>>>>> PREREQ_PM - again, which is correct?
>>>> I'm not sure how Makefile.PL is supposed to work, but I can say that
>>>> File::Spec and IO::Scaler are certainly required for Bioperl. Of
>>>> they're in Bundle::BioPerl which presumably is (must be!) itself a
>>>> requirement, so maybe that's why there's confusion in the
>>> Oh, woops, Bundle::BioPerl is supposed to be optional. So its more
>>> correct to say that certain things in Bioperl require Bundle::BioPerl
>>> (because they require the modules it contains), but those certain
>>> can themselves be considered optional.
>>> Even Bundle::BioPerl doesn't install some modules which it considers
>>> even 'more' optional...
>>> Yes, it gets kind of muddy and needs to be fully clarified/
>>> simplified I
>>> think. Is there a real burden to installing a couple of extra modules?
>>> If not, I'd say that we just stop considering things as optional.
>>> If its
>>> in Bioperl, it should work after you complete an installation process
>>> (eg. make, make install for linux, whatever the equivalent is under
>>> Windows). If there is something in Bioperl core that seems like a
>>> for most users to have to install, move it out to a different package.
>>> So what are the burdensome things that don't easily work out of the
>>> Bioperl-l mailing list
>>> Bioperl-l at lists.open-bio.org
>> : Hilmar Lapp -:- Durham, NC -:- hlapp at gmx dot net :
>> Bioperl-l mailing list
>> Bioperl-l at lists.open-bio.org
> Bioperl-l mailing list
> Bioperl-l at lists.open-bio.org
More information about the Bioperl-l