Re: [Bioperl-l] Are all recommended modules equally important ?

[Hilmar Lapp <hlapp@gmx.net>]

On Mar 17, 2008, at 11:38 AM, Dave Messina wrote:

> Hi Charles,
>
> Thanks for your note.
>
> All of the BioPerl 'recommended' modules involve optional  
> functionality, so
> I would think all of them would map to 'suggested' under Debian so  
> they
> won't be installed by default.

I would probably elevate LWP to 'recommended.' Other than that I agree.

	-hilmar

> For everyone else, this is the list of recommended modules he's  
> talking
> about:
> Ace
> Class::AutoClass
> Clone
> Convert::Binary::C
> Data::Stag::XMLWriter
> GD
> GD::SVG
> Graph
> HTML::Entities
> HTML::Parser
> HTTP::Request::Common
> LWP::UserAgent
> PostScript::TextBlock
> Set::Scalar
> SOAP::Lite
> Spreadsheet::ParseExcel
> Storable
> SVG
> SVG::Graph
> Text::Shellwords
> URI::Escape
> XML::DOM::XPath
> XML::Parser
> XML::Parser::PerlSAX
> XML::SAX
> XML::SAX::Writer
> XML::Twig
> XML::Writer
>
>
>
> Debian distributes versions 1.4 and 1.5.2 of Bioperl, but considers
> > using 1.5.2 in its next stable release. We welcome your comments  
> > on this
> > as well.
>
> I think the consensus here would be that 1.5.2 is the appropriate  
> version of
> Bioperl to use in the next stable release of Debian. Although we've  
> started
> to work toward Bioperl 1.6, that release will be at least a few  
> months off,
> and 1.4, while technically our most recent 'stable' release, is  
> waaay out of
> date.
>
>
>
> Dave
> _______________________________________________
> Bioperl-l mailing list
> Bioperl-l@lists.open-bio.org
> http://lists.open-bio.org/mailman/listinfo/bioperl-l

--
===========================================================
: Hilmar Lapp  -:-  Durham, NC  -:-  hlapp at gmx dot net :
===========================================================