Re: Bb-utils

On Dec 13, 2014, at 3:11 PM, George Hartzell <[email protected]> wrote:

> Fields, Christopher J writes:
>> Hi Weigang,
>> 
>> I wonder whether it would be better to have a separate bputils repo
>> in the BioPerl space.  This would allow development to continue w/o
>> tying it directly to a release, and I think would solve the
>> exposure problem much more so than having it included in the main
>> bioperl-live repo.  We could also feasibly include it as part of
>> the main CPAN bioperl release, maybe by simply linking to it as a
>> git submodule and packaging it up. 
>> [...]
> 
> Given how hard you've been working to break things out of the core and
> keep orphan things that *are* in core working, I'd suggest that there
> would have to be a really pressing technical reason (and longterm
> support commitment) to include the the main CPAN release.
> 
> Seems *way* cleaner to wrap it up into it's own CPAN release, give it
> a good, evocative name, and make sure the distribution is well built
> (correct meta info, dependencies, etc...).
> 
> Then it'll be easy to find, easy to install and will not increase the
> support burden of the core (or complicate the ongoing cleanup).
> 
> Errr, wait.  Someone *did* ask what I thought, didn't they? :)
> 
> g.

Yes to all of this :)

My only question would be, are there a lot of distributions that consist primarily of scripts that rely completely on another distribution?

chris