Hi Peter, I just wanted to add my $0.02 USD to say that I mostly agree with this - I have long used binaries precompiled by the tool author on Main, especially for cases where, as you say, the compile-time dependency list is large and painful. The only "gotcha" here is to make sure that binaries support the oldest possible version of glibc that might be installed on any of the Linux distributions and versions that we support, and that no non-standard preinstalled libraries have been pulled in during the build process.
--nate On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 12:46 PM, Peter Cock <p.j.a.c...@googlemail.com> wrote: > Hi Greg, > > I've retitled the thread, previously about a ToolShed nightly test > failure. > > A brief recap, we're talking about the Galaxy ToolShed XML > installation recipes for the NCBI BLAST+ packages and my > MIRA4 wrapper in their tool_dependencies.xml files: > > http://toolshed.g2.bx.psu.edu/view/iuc/package_blast_plus_2_2_29 > http://testtoolshed.g2.bx.psu.edu/view/iuc/package_blast_plus_2_2_29 > http://testtoolshed.g2.bx.psu.edu/view/peterjc/mira4_assembler > > These use the pattern of having os/arch specific <action> tags > (which download and install the tool author's precompiled > binaries) and a fall back default <action> which is to report > an error with the os/arch combination and that there are no > ready made binaries available. > > Greg is instead advocating the fall back action be to download > the source code, and do a local compile. > > My reply is below... > > On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 5:24 PM, Peter Cock <p.j.a.c...@googlemail.com> wrote: >> On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 4:53 PM, Greg Von Kuster <g...@bx.psu.edu> wrote: >>> >>> As we briefly discussed earlier, your mira4 recipe is not currently >>> following best practices. Although you uncovered a problem in >>> the framework which has now been corrected, your recipe's fall >>> back <actions> tag set should be the recipe for installing mira4 >>> from source ( http://sourceforge.net/projects/mira-assembler/ ) >>> since there is no licensing issues for doing so. This would be a >>> more ideal approach than echoing the error messages. >>> >>> Thanks very much for helping us discover this problem though! >>> >>> Greg Von Kuster >> >> Hi Greg, >> >> No problem - I'm good at discovering problems ;) >> >> If the download approach failed, it it most likely due to a >> transient error (e.g. network issues with download). Here I >> would much prefer Galaxy aborted and reported this as an >> error (and does not attempt the default action). Is that what >> you just fixed? >> >> As to best practice for the fall back action, I think that needs >> a new thread. >> >> Regards, >> >> Peter > > As to best practice, I do not agree that in cases like this > (MIRA4, NCBI BLAST+) where there are provided binaries > for the major platforms that the fall back should be compiling > from source. > > The NCBI BLAST+ provide binaries for 32 bit and 64 bit > Linux and Mac OS X (which I believe covers all the > mainstream platforms Galaxy runs on). > > Similarly, MIRA4 provides binaries for 64 bit Linux and > Mac OS X. Note that 32 bit binaries are not provided, > but would be very restricted in terms of the datasets > they could be used on anyway - and I doubt many of > the systems Galaxy runs on these days are 32 bits. > > If the os/arch combination is exotic enough that precompiled > binaries are not available, then it is likely compilation will be > tricky anyway - or not supported for that tool, or Galaxy itself. > > Essentially I am arguing that where the precompiled tool > binaries cover any mainstream system Galaxy might > be used on, a local compile fall back is not needed. > > Also, these are both complex tools which are relatively slow > to compile, and have quite a large compile time dependency > set (e.g. MIRA4 requires at least a quite recent GCC, BOOST, > flex, expat, and strongly recommends TCmalloc). Here at > least some of the dependencies have been packaged for > the ToolShed (probably by Bjoern?) but in the case of > MIRA4 and BLAST+ this is still a lot of effort for no > practical gain. > > I also feel there is an argument that the Galaxy goal of > reproducibility should favour using precompiled binaries if > available: A locally compiled binary will generally mean a > different compiler version, perhaps with different optimisation > flags, and different library versions. It will not necessarily > give the same results as the tool author's provided > precompiled binary. > > (Wow, this ended up being a long email!) > > Regards, > > Peter > ___________________________________________________________ > 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/ ___________________________________________________________ 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/