RMBlast#3142
Conversation
| easyblock = 'ConfigureMake' | ||
|
|
||
| name = 'RMBlast' | ||
| version = '2.2.28-linux64' |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I would make this 2.2.28, and move the -linux64 part to the versionsuffix (or maybe just remove it?)
| checksums = [('md5', 'fb5f4e2e02ffcb1b17af2e9f206c5c22')] | ||
|
|
||
| dependencies = [ | ||
| ('BLAST+', '2.3.0', versionsuffix, ('foss', '2016a')), |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@RvDijk Specify the toolchain via toolchain = instead?
|
Test report by @boegel |
|
Test report by @boegel |
|
Test report by @boegel |
| sources = ['ncbi-rmblastn-%(version)s-src.tar.gz'] | ||
| checksums = [('md5', 'fb5f4e2e02ffcb1b17af2e9f206c5c22')] | ||
|
|
||
| # ('BLAST+', '2.3.0', versionsuffix), |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@boegel I figured that RMBlast has all functionalities of BLAST+ including some others, thus does not depend on BLAST+ since it is already in it.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@RvDijk Yet, a quick look at http://www.repeatmasker.org/RMBlast.html tells me that BLAST+ is actually required to install RMBlast?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@boegel I did think the same, however in the release notes they say that:
"RMBlast 2.2.27+ First integrated release of NCBI BLAST+ toolkit and RMBlast."
And they also argue that both installations are needed for precompiled (not from source) installations:
"If you choose to use the pre-compiled binaries you will need both for use with RepeatMasker/RepeatModeler."
If you think that I misunderstood these lines, then I will include the BLAST+ dependency.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@RvDijk Well, if it builds/installs and works, it should be fine without providing BLAST+...
In that case, please remove this commented out line.
|
Test report by @boegel |
Dependency for RepeatMasker