[Bioperl-l] Smaller Bioperl Modules

[Alex Lancaster]

>>>>> "SB" == Sendu Bala  writes:

SB> Nathan.Watson-Haigh at csiro.au wrote:
>> It seems that the issue of having "tons of separately installable
>> mini-bioperl modules" is not an issue at all for anyone at CPAN,
>> not a problem for end users (as long as dependencies between
>> modules are done correctly) but maybe/is an issue for dev
>> maintainance: http://www.perlmonks.org/?node_id=699449

SB> I asked on the perl mailing list. It was very strongly
SB> discouraged, with good
SB> reasons. http://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.modules/2007/07/msg55160.html
SB> (especially Adam Kennedy's postings of 4/07)

SB> Please remind yourself of the past discussion before pressing
SB> forward:
SB> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lang.perl.bio.general/15506/

I concur.  It's definitely a major issue for package maintainers.  If
you split up bioperl into too many little CPAN modules, it will make
packaging bioperl via RPMs in Fedora (or other distros, I suspect) a
real pain.  In Fedora that would mean that we might have to
individually review/build each package separately which would add a
lot of overhead.

Some split up along the lines previously discussed seems sensible
(into a "core" and "dev", i.e. not more that 3-4 separate modules),
but please not 900 CPAN packages... ;)

Alex