> > Another vote for the excellent modules system from us at AgResearch > > Galaxy's dependency injection works in a similar way, without requiring > all the external dependencies. We don't need unload since we compose a > unique environment for every tool execution. This is much cleaner that > loading everything into the environment before running Galaxy, we want > tools to be executed with as clean an environment as possible.
Setting the environment for each tool just prior to running the tool is clearly better. What I'm doing currently is loading an environment module just before running a tool in Galaxy. So far, I have done this in the tool XML file by prefixing the command with a module load command, e.g. <command>. /etc/profile; module load EMBOSS/5.0.0; infoseq -sequence [snipped] </command> The ugly ". /etc/profile" is needed for technical reasons. I don't like this, as it's a bit hacky, but what it achieves is useful and flexible. I envisage an extension to the tool XML syntax which would let me write it like this, say: <requirements><requirement type="module" version="5.0.0">EMBOSS</requirement></requirements> <command>infoseq -sequence [snipped] </command> This will enable my native EMBOSS wrapper to run the defined version of the (system-installed) EMBOSS suite. However, it would only be worth me writing this extension if there's a likelihood of getting it into Galaxy. Is there? Here's where I'm coming from. I already have most of the applications I want installed on my system. I am working on updating the RPMs to support side-by-side installs of multiple versions, with version selection by the environment modules facility. This is a small change (and improvement) on what I have today. It's a work in progress, but it's a manageable amount of work. It's looking likely that this multi-version packaging approach may be adopted by an official CentOS Scientific Repo, and this could change the landscape in terms of packaging of scientific applications for major Linux distributions. Who knows, that's all in the future. In the meantime, there's work going on in Galaxy land to package every application wanted in Galaxy, by writing install scripts, encapsulating environment variables in tool XML files, etc. (There is difficulty here in writing install scripts which work on every platform, which I have commented on previously.) The big question is, will the Galaxy team accept contributions to Galaxy to support different ways of solving this packaging problem? In particular, allowing for environment modules to be loaded as part of running a tool, and having this functionality in the toolshed? cheers, Simon ======================================================================= Attention: The information contained in this message and/or attachments from AgResearch Limited is intended only for the persons or entities to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipients is prohibited by AgResearch Limited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately. ======================================================================= ___________________________________________________________ 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: http://lists.bx.psu.edu/ To search Galaxy mailing lists use the unified search at: http://galaxyproject.org/search/mailinglists/
