Hello, Jun created this table https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1tApLhVqxRZ2VOuMH_aPUgFENQJfbLlB_PFH_Ah_q7hM/edit?usp=sharing that lists a set of workflows and its dependencies. Some are trickier to package than others, but if I read this right, then artic, scrnaseq and smartseq2 just wait for nextflow and pigx-rnaseq waits for tests to work :o/ Shovill just needs a package for itself.
Some dependencies that we are missing are also not distributed with Conda. A weird example is the pip package "capsule" as a dependency of nextflow. Conda however distributes nextflow, so ... what are they doing? I started to really like that spreadsheet - have also added bcbio to the list of pending workflow engines. I don't really know where this spreadsheet could go. It is useful for us now, but I wonder what kind of questions it can help answering - is it a similarity score for workflows implementations? A flexibility score for workflows? An indication for packages to be substituteable? Something to rank significance for all those packages left uncited in scientific publications? Once all the packages are in Debian, we can auto-create that matrix. But now? Any idea on the bio.tools front about this? Best, Steffen
