[Bioperl-l] Packaging bioperl for Fedora

[Chris Fields]

> ...
> My sense is that if the license of a package is OK with Fedora and it
> doesn't otherwise break up a group of packages too much (e.g. breaking
> up Bioperl may or may not be a good idea), then it could go into
> Fedora.  (For example I believe that the NCBI C++ toolkit's license
> should be just fine being a work of the US government is in the public
> domain[1], so it could go in Fedora, same for BLAST[2], which is has
> an implementation within the toolkit).

BioPerl is issued under the Perl Artistic License so there shouldn't  
be any problems with making a distribution.  A copy of the license is  
included in CVS and should be included in the distribution.

http://www.bioperl.org/wiki/Licensing_BioPerl

As I stated in a another post we already make bioperl core, bioperl- 
run, bioperl-network, and bioperl-db PPMs for ActivePerl so I don't  
see a problem with having a Fedora RPM available for core, bioperl- 
run, bioperl-db. etc., though I would stick with releases and not CVS.

chris

> Is anybody in Biopackages.net interested in packaging biopython there?
> Given that whether or not Bioperl lives (partially) in Fedora is still
> under discussion, it might make sense for me to suspend work on the
> Bioperl stuff (although not the CPAN Perl deps) and work on a
> biopython package for Fedora for the moment until we decide how to
> proceed with Bioperl.
>
> Alex
>
> [1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/IEB/ToolBox/C_DOC/lxr/source/ 
> corelib/README
> [2] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/blast/developer.shtml
> -- 
> Alex Lancaster, Ph.D. | Ecology & Evolutionary Biology, University  
> of Arizona