[Sorry for the belated reply; I was on vacation when this thread started and have only just caught up to it.]
Tim Booth <ava...@fastmail.fm> writes: > These don't break the build but they should really be disabled. Is > there an easy way to do this, do you think? Yes, just comment out the relevant per-project makefiles' CHECK_CMD settings. > A user reported that his analysis took an order of magnitude longer > after upgrading BLAST+ (from the static binary build to the Debian Med > build). I'd expect some slowdown with dynamic linking but this is > indeed fairly drastic: Dynamic linking does indeed add a fair bit of startup overhead. :-/ OTOH, the BLAST+ executables support input files containing multiple queries, which should reduce its impact (but may entail reworking some scripts). > If the latter, I know the real fix is for script authors use BLAST more > sensibly, but I'm wondering if there is any mileage in trying to make a > ncbi-blast+-static package? That's an interesting idea, but it would probably be pretty hefty. As far as logistics go, I'd suggest that it provide/conflict/replace ncbi-blast+ (and ship separate copies of its handful of architecture-independent files) rather than pretending to be coinstallable. -- Aaron M. Ucko, KB1CJC (amu at alum.mit.edu, ucko at debian.org) http://www.mit.edu/~amu/ | http://stuff.mit.edu/cgi/finger/?a...@monk.mit.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-med-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/udly5yrpdvh....@dr-wily.mit.edu
