David,
The dependency issue has come up, though more along the lines of users
wanting less of them (we have quite a long list). In the case of
bioperl, we're basically whittling down to a small set of stable core
components with minimal dependencies, but we've identified a few key
areas where circular dependencies may become an issue, though I think
that could be worked around somewhat.
We'll probably have one last 'monolithic' release prior to this, then
we'll start working on the basic restructuring.
chris
On Aug 17, 2009, at 10:36 AM, David Golden wrote:
libwin32 did it. It wasn't that many dists. Jan Dubois might have
pointers.
The thing that jumps out to me as a potential problem is dependencly
management. Particularly, if anything is mutually dependent, they
should stay in the same dist.
David
On Aug 17, 2009 8:29 AM, "Chris Fields" <cjfie...@illinois.edu>
wrote:
All,
Immediately after the next bioperl release in the next few weeks,
we plan on splitting up bioperl 'core' (~900 or so modules?!?) into
separate focused distributions. This has been long overdue but
delayed for many reasons, primarily b/c no one wants to take it on.
Is there a precedent for something like this? Any suggestions
would be very welcome.
chris
