search

chanzuckerberg / shasta

[MOVED] Moved to paoloshasta/shasta. De novo assembly from Oxford Nanopore reads
Other
270 stars 57 forks source link

No recipe on bioconda for 0.7.0 #257

Closed hoelzer closed 3 years ago

hoelzer commented 3 years ago

Is it planned to add also a bioconda recipe for the latest release?

Thanks!

paoloczi commented 3 years ago

I have mixed feelings about this, because Shasta could be packaged in many different ways, and I hesitate to add support for all possible packaging solutions, as that could become hard to maintain. My preference would be for changes that are specific to a packaging solution to be made outside the Shasta repository, but I could be convinced to the contrary if strong arguments for doing it in the Shasta repository itself emerge.

In addition, most of Shasta functionality is provided by a single static executable with no external dependencies, so the added value of packaging is minimal. However I do understand the convenience of having Shasta become part of a popular packaging solution - bioconda in this case.

Perhaps you or somebody else could create a shasta-bioconda repository that implements your desired recipe?

hoelzer commented 3 years ago

Hi! Thanks for the fast reply! Actually, I also just figured out how easy the install is bc/ Shasta comes with all dependencies in a single executable - great work!

I think conda is just a really default way of installing tools for the community and so the first thing users are looking for. Afaik, you can also automate this and every time a new Shasta release appears a new recipe is build. Unfortunately, I can not provide this bc/ my exp here is also limited.

And also for me the issue is basically solved bc/ the available executable works ;)

On Wed, 16 Jun 2021, 18:40 paoloczi, @.***> wrote:

I have mixed feelings about this, because Shasta could be packaged in many different ways, and I hesitate to add support for all possible packaging solutions, as that could become hard to maintain. My preference would be for changes that are specific to a packaging solution to be made outside the Shasta repository, but I could be convinced to the contrary if strong arguments for doing it in the Shasta repository itself emerge.

In addition, most of Shasta functionality is provided by a single static executable with no external dependencies, so the added value of packaging is minimal. However I do understand the convenience of having Shasta become part of a popular packaging solution - bioconda in this case.

Perhaps you or somebody else could create a shasta-bioconda repository that implements your desired recipe?

— You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/chanzuckerberg/shasta/issues/257#issuecomment-862534324, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADN2CZ2PRZSMZOZAJICEQXTTTDHZDANCNFSM46ZZOL5A .

paoloczi commented 3 years ago

Cool. Let's leave this issue open for a bit, and give a chance to others to pitch in.

paoloczi commented 3 years ago

Given that there were no additional comments, I will close this.