Re: [Bioperl-l] Are all recommended modules equally important ?
I have looked at which modules are in a separate pacakge in Debian:
Le Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 09:29:10AM +0000, Sendu Bala a écrit :
> I looked at the most used external modules. Used 6 times or more:
> Data::Dumper => used 55 times
> Carp => used 51 times
> IO::String => used 25 times
> Symbol => used 19 times
> File::Spec => used 17 times
perl-base, libfile-spec-perl (newer version)
> HTTP::Request::Common => used 17 times
> POSIX => used 12 times
> DB_File => used 11 times
> Fcntl => used 11 times
> IO::File => used 11 times
> Exporter => used 10 times
> File::Temp => used 9 times
> Dumpvalue => used 8 times
> LWP::UserAgent => used 8 times
> Scalar::Util => used 8 times
> URI::Escape => used 8 times
> File::Basename => used 6 times
> File::Path => used 6 times
> XML::Writer => used 6 times
Therefore, I propose to keep libio-string-perl, libwww-perl, liburi-perl and
libxml-writer-perl as Recommends, and downgrate the other modules as Suggests.
This, plus the statement that 1.5.2 is the de facto stable version would in mh
opinion be enough to let bioperl 1.5.2 migrate into Testing.
By the way, is there a way to install package with all the 'Suggest'ed
dependancies, something like aptitude install bioperl --with-suggested ? I have
not found anything in the manpage (and it would also be useful for T-Coffee…).
Have a nice day,
Wakō, Saitama, Japan