Re: New distribution Bio-Tools-Phylo-PAML
Carnë Draug <[email protected]> Fri, 8 Sep 2017 18:57:35 +0100
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.lang.perl.bio.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <CAPOrs_3-P=YeoWmfTD_SQn0X9ATfLK+3u=YxMHkMMLunJ24K-A@mail.gmail.com> |
> On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 8:32 AM Fields, Christopher J <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Sep 7, 2017, at 2:12 PM, Carnë Draug <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Hi >>> >>> I have been preparing a new distribution for Bio::Tools::Phylo::PAML >>> and related modules [1] which I would like to make a release of. >>> >>> To avoid clashes with existing installations, I would like to have a >>> new release of bioperl-live and bioperl-run soon. Is this possible? >>> I already have commits ready for bioperl-live and bioperl-run that >>> will remove the files. >>> >>> On a related topic, I updated the instructions on how to prepare a new >>> perl distribution from a subset of modules [2] and made a new release >>> of the bioperl distzilla plugin bundle [3] (will take a few hours >>> before it is indexed in metacpan). >>> >>> Carnë >>> >>> [1] https://github.com/bioperl/Bio-Tools-Phylo-PAML >>> [2] http://bioperl.org/howtos/split-new-distribution.html >>> [3] https://metacpan.org/pod/Dist::Zilla::PluginBundle::BioPerl >>> >> >> >> I personally think splitting these out into a separate PAML-specific >> distribution is a great idea, variations with PAML has always been hard to >> keep up with. I’ll have a look at the documentation as well, if there is a >> way to do this for each Bio::Tools application it paves the way for >> combining the wrappers and parsers into separate distributions if needed. >> >> Jason, you’re listed as key contributor for bioperl PAML development, any >> thoughts? >> >> Chris >> On 8 September 2017 at 17:45, Jason Stajich <[email protected]> wrote: > Prob package the Run and parser code in same distr as well I think? That's what I have done. See https://github.com/bioperl/Bio-Tools-Phylo-PAML > On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 9:44 AM Jason Stajich <[email protected]> wrote: > Absolutely. A separate package here makes > Complete sense and wouid hopefully make it easier to fix and update as > needed. Is anyone actively willing to maintain format chasing of PAML? > I can confirm that it is broken for the latest version. As part of the split I removed the conditions on the tests and they started to fail immediately. Despite the issue, I would prefer to have one release first without any code changes. Any fixing should be done on a follow up release. Carnë _______________________________________________ Bioperl-l mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.open-bio.org/mailman/listinfo/bioperl-l