[Bioperl-l] Splits again

Nathan S. Haigh n.haigh at sheffield.ac.uk
Thu Jun 28 15:53:52 UTC 2007

Hash: SHA1

Chris Fields wrote:
> On Jun 28, 2007, at 2:25 AM, Sendu Bala wrote:
>> Chris Fields wrote:
>>> ...
>> The short and sweet version: my proposal has all the benefits of
>> yours, but none of the disadvantages. What's not to like?
> The short and sweet version: I'm more convinced after you laid out your
> argument in detail, which would have saved me some typing last night,
> BTW, thanks! ; >
> The other core devs need to chip in and we need to openly (candidly)
> discuss it some more (I've added Hilmar to this).  There is also a
> tenable solution that allows both aspects ('cliques' and single mode)
> which might make everybody happy.

Couldn't "cliques" simply be satisfied with CPAN Bundles?

> Let's say we only want to install Bio::SeqIO::genbank.  The
> Bio::SeqIO::genbank Build.PL would only install what was needed (as you
> indicated), only Bio::SeqIO::genbank-related tests would run (along with
> dependency test, if available), and life would go on.  However, what if
> we wanted to install everything in SeqIO/DB/AlignIO/etc?

I think this might be where Bundles come in for installing these
"cliques" of related modules?

- -- snip --

>> Yes, it would be automated, and no, it wouldn't at all be any kind of
>> additional headache. I'm proposing a fully-automated system that the
>> pumpkin wouldn't even have to think about it. Much /less/ of a
>> headache than dealing with splits. Orders of magnitude easier to deal
>> with.
> The 'headache' would be the initial setup (splitting test, individual
> Build.PL, etc), but this could be done stepwise or section-wise, I suppose.

Yes, I think this is where most of the labour will be. However, setting
the test suite up like this would be beneficial with or without
publishing modules individually.

- -- snip --
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org


More information about the Bioperl-l mailing list