- Original Message -
> From: "Dan Tenenbaum"
> To: "Kasper Daniel Hansen"
> Cc: bioc-devel@r-project.org
> Sent: Friday, June 13, 2014 4:24:27 PM
> Subject: Re: [Bioc-devel] BiocCheck
>
>
>
> - Original Message -
> > From: "Kasper Daniel Hansen"
> > To: bioc-devel@r-project.
Hi Michael,
- Original Message -
> From: "Michael Stadler"
> To: "Dan Tenenbaum" , bioc-devel@r-project.org
> Sent: Friday, June 13, 2014 12:32:52 AM
> Subject: differences between petty and perceval (OS X 10.6.8 build machines
> for release/devel)
>
> Hi Dan,
>
> I'm cc'ing the list
- Original Message -
> From: "Kasper Daniel Hansen"
> To: bioc-devel@r-project.org
> Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2014 7:20:00 AM
> Subject: [Bioc-devel] BiocCheck
>
> 1) The hash bang in the BiocCheck script currently requires
> intervention at
> install time.
>
> It would be much more co
In a similar vein to Yihui's suggestion, could we encourage developers to
use the "BugReports" field of the DESCRIPTION file, and pull that URL out
and link it on the main page of a project? This could be a link if
the developer wants email to go directly to them, or point to the issues
page of a
When BioC 2.14 was released, it did work on OS X 10.6.8, but not on 10.9
and neither on some flavours of 32-bit Linux.
The bowtie developers have released version 1.0.1 which addresses some
of these issues. For the remaining one that still made it fail on OS X
10.9, I have been in contact with the
That is pretty weird. Since this is a segmentation fault in Bowtie,
perhaps there are resource demands which are only satisfied on perceval
(tmp space, #cores).
Presumably this worked when Bioc was released, so what have you changed in
between?
Best,
Kasper
On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 3:32 AM, Mic
Hi Dan,
I'm cc'ing the list; maybe somebody else has experienced differences
between petty and perceval.
Rbowtie release (1.4.5) is not building under OS X 10.6.8 (petty).
Rbowtie release (1.4.5) and development (1.5.5) are virtually identical
(only DESCRIPTION and NEWS differ).
The development
