[Bioperl-l] BioPerl 1.6 RC1

[Alex Lancaster]

>>>>> "CF" == Chris Fields  writes:

CF> All, I am proud to announce that the first release candidate for
CF> BioPerl 1.6 is available for testing.

CF> A quick note on versioning: due to issues with alpha numbered
CF> versions on CPAN possibly overwriting a stable release, this
CF> release candidate has a VERSION of 1.005009_001 (or 1.005009001).
CF> This will be switched to 1.006000 (no alpha) once the release is
CF> final.

CF> The RC is currently being uploaded to CPAN and should be available
CF> in the next 24-48 hours under authorname CJFIELDS.  In the
CF> meantime, the release candidates can be directly downloaded here:

CF> http://bioperl.org/DIST/BioPerl-1.5.9_1.tar.bz2
CF> http://bioperl.org/DIST/BioPerl-1.5.9_1.tar.gz
CF> http://bioperl.org/DIST/BioPerl-1.5.9_1.zip

CF> Signature file: http://bioperl.org/DIST/SIGNATURES.md5

CF> A preliminary ActiveState PPM is also available and is located in
CF> the BioPerl Release Candidate repository; the directions for
CF> installation are here:

CF> http://www.bioperl.org/wiki/Installing_Bioperl_on_Windows

Hi there,

I'm the Fedora packager for bioperl.  I note on the release notes page
that Bio::Graphics has been split off into it's own CPAN module.
Since in most Linux distributions a single tarball = a single RPM = a
single package. How many .tar.gz files (and therefore packages) are
now required to install bioperl?

If Bio::Graphics is now not included inside the bioperl tarball and is
required for bioperl, it will mean that a new package
(perl-Bio-Graphics) of the CPAN module will need to be reviewed and
packaged before the new version bioperl can be shipped.

Also is the version number 1.5.9 or 1.5.9.1 and will the next RC
candidate be 1.5.9.2?  Can you tell me the exact sequence of version
numbers you expect before going to 1.6.0?  From a Linux distribution
POV the exact version numbers are very important because they are used
to determine whether one release is more recent than another and
therefore whether to update a package or not.  Having release
candidate tarball with the version 1.5.9._1 (i.e. with the underscore)
is very non-standard and can confuse package managers.

Thanks,
Alex