[Bioperl-l] [Fwd: Re: [perl #75252] POD rendering question/problem (was [Fwd: What is CPAN doing?])]

[Chris Fields]

I have added a 'no_index' to that specific directory in Build.PL, suppose we can change that back if there is no purpose to it (though it might come in handy with spots we don't need to be indexed).

chris

On May 25, 2010, at 8:04 AM, Brian Osborne wrote:

> Dave,
> 
> I looked at the scripts, and like you I concluded they didn't use that local Bio/ directory. Then I ran then with and without that Bio/ directory, same results. So I removed that local Bio/ directory.
> 
> Rob, does some additional action need to be taken by Chris, or some other Bioperl maintainer, at CPAN/PAUSE?
> 
> Brian O.
> 
> On May 24, 2010, at 6:03 PM, Dave Messina wrote:
> 
>> From: Graham Barr via RT <search-rt at cpan.org>
>>> IMO it is confusing to include 2 different copies of the same module.
>> 
>> I agree.
>> 
>> It would be better to use the main copies of PrimarySeq, PrimarySeqI, Seq, and SeqI instead of private copies (and not just because of this POD conflict).
>> 
>> In fact, my quick examination suggests that the examples/root scripts don't even use the duplicate modules in that private lib (just TestInterface and TestObject).
>> 
>> I haven't extensively played with them, though, so there may be some compelling reason for using private copies that I'm overlooking. In that case we could just do as Graham suggested and block CPAN from indexing the private copies.
>> 
>> So I propose we test if the example scripts perform as expected without those private copies and if so, remove them.
>> 
>> Dave
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Bioperl-l mailing list
>> Bioperl-l at lists.open-bio.org
>> http://lists.open-bio.org/mailman/listinfo/bioperl-l
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Bioperl-l mailing list
> Bioperl-l at lists.open-bio.org
> http://lists.open-bio.org/mailman/listinfo/bioperl-l