Re: Bio-Linux 9
On 6/21/18 5:41 PM, Andreas Tille wrote:
> Hi William,
>
> On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 03:39:46PM +0100, William wrote:
>> Over the next six weeks I'll be working with Tony Travis to build an alpha
>> release of Bio Linux 9, which will see a switch from using the NERC
>> repositories to Debian sid, as imported into Ubuntu. We hope that this
>> release will have most of the functionality seen in our Bio-Linux 8.0.8
>> point release. We are working towards a new version of Bio-Linux based on
>> Ubuntu 18.04, with features such as USB persistence using the new Ubuntu
>> hybrid ISO's. The new release will be in the form of a 'bio-linux-desktop'
>> meta-package based on the existing med-bio meta-package. We hope that we can
>> increase interest in both Debian-Med and Bio-Linux within the scientific
>> community by creating a meta-package that when installed, would be small
>> enough to fit on a live, persistent USB stick or DVD.
>>
>> We're grateful to the Debian-Med community for being so welcoming to our
>> efforts to transition away from the NERC repositories, and I look forward to
>> returning to work on Bio-Linux.
> Thanks for the information and please let us know here if we can do some
> packaging of software you are missing. This software would rank very
> high on my priority list.
Same here. I went through quite some packages listed on
https://blends.debian.org/med/tasks/bio as being part of Bio-Linux
but not in Debian. It i sadly not as easy as one possibly wishes it to be.
Quite some URLs are no longer existing or the page points to a newer
version of a post-doc moving away that is no longer existing.
Now, one could argue that this
is an indication that this particular software is obsolete. But then again,
with bio-hackspaces emerging, it is likely that these are following
similar historic footsteps with hemi-randomised primers and gel separation
rather than a full-blown NGS (or maybe they are since there is the
nanopore).
Either way, we possibly should not look down too much on the
accompanying 20year old software.
Actually, this may be a nice review article: How the software landscape has
moved away from studying the individual gene. Any takers?
So, please kindly help with a list of priorities.
@all, anybody who minds if I remove all software from our red list that
has stale URLs? Hexamer came to mind. Ohters just needs an update of
their URL like GenoGrapher and yet again others should possibly be
removed because there is no real interest?
Cheers,
Steffen
Reply to: