On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 10:40 PM, Edward Kirton eskir...@lbl.gov wrote:
your suggestion for blastdbn and blastdbp sounds fine.
it's okay if a few of our users need to edit the metadata of the dbs in
their history. thanks for asking and doing this.
Great.
Perhaps you can throw some light on
Hi Edward,
I've started work on this in earnest now. I see you only defined one
new datatype, blastdb, which worked for nucleotide databases.
I want to handle protein databases too, so I think two datatypes
makes sense - which I am currently calling blastdbn and blastdbp.
That won't be
your suggestion for blastdbn and blastdbp sounds fine.
it's okay if a few of our users need to edit the metadata of the dbs in
their history.
thanks for asking and doing this.
On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 5:37 AM, Peter Cock p.j.a.c...@googlemail.comwrote:
Hi Edward,
I've started work on this in
Hi Edward,
We're now running BLAST+ searches on our local Galaxy via our cluster,
and some of the cluster nodes have relatively small amounts of RAM.
This means I've become more aware of limitations in the NCBI BLAST+
tools' support for using a subject FASTA file (instead of making a local
BLAST
On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 10:53 AM, Peter Cock p.j.a.c...@googlemail.com wrote:
Hi Edward,
We're now running BLAST+ searches on our local Galaxy via our cluster,
and some of the cluster nodes have relatively small amounts of RAM.
This means I've become more aware of limitations in the NCBI
sounds great, thanks peter. i granted you access to my toolshed repo, but
perhaps we want only one tool in the toolshed when all done.
On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 3:20 AM, Peter Cock p.j.a.c...@googlemail.comwrote:
On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 10:53 AM, Peter Cock p.j.a.c...@googlemail.com
wrote:
Hi
On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 6:10 PM, Edward Kirton eskir...@lbl.gov wrote:
sounds great, thanks peter. i granted you access to my toolshed repo, but
perhaps we want only one tool in the toolshed when all done.
Thanks - but given the tools currently live in the main repository
with Galaxy itself,
