Biopython 1.51 has been released, and I have a spkg up at http://sage.math.washington.edu/home/mhampton/biopython-1.51.spkg
which I also posted on the ticket: http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/6634 Since the biopython-1.51b spkg never got reviewed, and biopython-1.49b is broken, it would be great if someone could review this! -Marshall Hampton On Jul 28, 10:44 am, Marshall Hampton <hampto...@gmail.com> wrote: > Well,biopythondevelopment is pretty active right now, so 1.51 will > have quite a few changes from the beta. There is still quite a lot of > discussion about what will be in 1.51 on their mailing list (http:// > lists.open-bio.org/pipermail/biopython-dev/2009-July/). > > If you search on trac for "biopython", you can see all the previous > rounds of reviews for package updates. That may be helpful in addition > to what Minh suggested. But with the recent changes away from > mxtexttools and Numeric,biopythonis pretty simple to install now so > its a relatively easy package to maintain. > > -Marshall > > On Jul 27, 12:30 pm, tkeller <thomas.e.kel...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Sounds like a good plan. I downloaded your spkg and it installs fine > > and works as expected. I have added this information to your ticket, > > is there something else I should do for reviewing? > > > Do you know what the proposed differences between the beta and 1.51 > > final are? > > > Thomas > > > On Jul 27, 12:30 am, bbarker <brandon.bar...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Great, glad to see this! Thanks for the updated spkg. > > > > On Jul 26, 9:47 pm, Marshall Hampton <hampto...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Ok, I posted my spkg at: > > > > >http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/6634 > > > > > It would be great if you (tkeller) got a trac account, since currently > > > > I don't know any other sage developers who have any real interest in > > > > this (partial exception of William Stein but clearly he has a lot on > > > > his plate). > > > > > -Marshall > > > > > On Jul 26, 12:25 pm, Marshall Hampton <hampto...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > Thanks for pointing that out. I have made a 1.51b spkg, but decided > > > > > to wait a week or two for the final 1.51 to come out. But I didn't > > > > > realize that the 1.49b install was broken. > > > > > > Anyway if you have any interest in helping out, you should get a trac > > > > > account. Just email William Stein for one. > > > > > > I am excited about their cleanup too, I think with a little more work > > > > >biopythoncan be made a standard part of sage, but that will require a > > > > > developer vote. > > > > > > -Marshall Hampton > > > > > > On Jul 26, 12:05 pm, tkeller <thomas.e.kel...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Thanks for all the recent work upgrading the base python > > > > > > distribution > > > > > > to 2.6, I imagine it was quite a task. I noticed that installing the > > > > > >biopython-1.49b spkg is broken from the upgrade . I have upgraded the > > > > > > spkg to 1.51b and it installs and works fine on my sage-4.1 > > > > > > installation. Is there a place to upload supplemental spkg's , or > > > > > > should I get a trac account? > > > > > > > A side benefit to upgrading the spkg is that the last few patches > > > > > > finally removed the mxText dependency, so it is now a clean install > > > > > > aside from requiring Numpy. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to sage-devel-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URLs: http://www.sagemath.org -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
