Ketil, Christian and Antoine; > > sure, it should be no problem talking about this. I have, however, no > > experience with cloud-based computing -- I prefer local clusters, > > where we have greater control over what is going on. > > I currently use local machinery as well, for practical and political > reasons. I do think cloud (that is infrastructure-as-a-service) would be > great for a lot of stuff, though.
Despite the name there isn't much cloud specific about CloudBioLinux. It is a framework to install packages and will work on local machines as well as on Amazon instances. What the cloud provides is a lot of bare bone machines and need bootstrapping, and a nice way to make the results of that bootstrapping and installation available. With the framework you can do: fab -f fabfile.py -H localhost install_libraries:haskell to install all of the defined Haskell packages on a local machine. > > An idea for big Haskell installations is to proxy hackage. Almost > > everything comes from hackage... but feel free to talk about anything > > All you need is a network connection, a working, recentish ghc, and a > working cabal-install - everything else is then available on-demand. Perfect. I just re-did the Haskell part of the install to have a working cabal, which had fell by the wayside at some point. Hopefully the version that ships with Ubuntu is recent enough: $ ghc --version The Glorious Glasgow Haskell Compilation System, version 6.12.3 > > I regard both my and Ketils libraries as "too unstable" to pre-include > > them into a ready-to-use package. "Unstable" here basically means that > > we change things too often; though Ketils is already nicely > > stable. But if a tool like cabal-dev is available, that is of no big > > concern anyway. > > I do have a bunch of tools that are reasonably stable, and I run weekly > tests to ensure that they compile against current hackage. > > "My" library is a little bit of everything - some stuff is used all over > the place, some has little use but extensive testing, some is just > experimental. One option - part of the "biocore" effort - could be to > factor out the stable and well tested stuff. What I'd really like to get is just a set of the most useful packages a Haskell bioinformatics/statistical programmer would want around. For instance, for Python I'd be disappointed if I worked on a system that claimed to have support for doing Python in bioinformatics and it didn't have Numpy or Biopython. Here's my initial start: https://github.com/chapmanb/cloudbiolinux/blob/master/config/haskell-libs.yaml Thanks much for all the ideas, Brad _______________________________________________ Biohaskell mailing list Biohaskell@biohaskell.org http://malde.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/biohaskell
