On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 11:41 AM, Peter Cock <p.j.a.c...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 5:30 PM, Rodolfo Aramayo <raram...@tamu.edu> wrote:
>> Dave,
>> It did contain errors as reported by tailing the last part of the
>> Thanks
>> --Rodolfo
> Looks like your BOOST is too new for BLAST 2.2.26+ (which
> just recently became a problem on the Galaxy Tool Shed testing
> system as well).
> In the short term I'm hoping to update the Tool Shed repository
> to use the NCBI provided pre-compiled binaries. I'm in discussion
> with Galaxy's Dave Bouvier about how best to do that, perhaps
> with some relatively new functionality added to Galaxy. Next,
> updating the BLAST+ version (and the unit tests to match).
> I would suggest right now you manually install BLAST+ using
> the NCBI provided binaries.
> Peter

Boost is a funny thing
Changes a lot
A package compiled with one Boost version might fail to compile with a
newer one. I have seen it a lot
You either have to download Boost and link to the specific version you
want before compiling your package or provide pre-compiled binaries
The question I have is: How many Galaxy packages have Boos as a
dependency for compilation? and if the answer is: a lot, then would it
be smart for Galaxy to have a place where it can keep versions of
these commonly-used libraries so that they can be linked by packages
that need to be compiled 'in-situ' or would it be just more efficient
to provide pre-compiled binaries?
Something tells me that pre-compiled binaries might not take full
advantage of the hardware they are and that compiling is better...
So, should ToolShed installation require automatic download of a set
of pre-defined commonly-used libraries?

Please keep all replies on the list by using "reply all"
in your mail client.  To manage your subscriptions to this
and other Galaxy lists, please use the interface at:

To search Galaxy mailing lists use the unified search at:

Reply via email to