svn commit: r370220 - in head/biology: . ncbi-blast

[Jason Bacon]

On 12/28/14 2:08 PM, Michael Gmelin wrote:
>
>
>> On 28 Dec 2014, at 20:48, John Marino <freebsd.contact at marino.st> wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/28/2014 20:43, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote:
>>> John Marino <freebsd.contact at marino.st> writes:
>>>> Dag-Erling Smørgrav <des at des.no> writes:
>>>>> The original BLAST is at 2.2.26, while BLAST+ is at 2.2.30.
>>>> so what?  a PORTEPOCH is matched to a specific package name.
>>> Yes, and this name cannot be used for the original BLAST program without
>>> bumping PORTEPOCH.  This port should have been named ncbi-blast-plus or
>>> something similar.
>> This is just an opinion.  There is no technical basis for bumping
>> PORTEPOCH.  To boil this down, you are saying the port has a misleading
>> name and should have been named something else by Jason who submitted
>> the PR to add the port.
>>
> Just to add my 2 cents:
>
> I don't really follow the argument of bumping portepoch (it's not a very explicit way of stating that this is not the original version - IMHO it's actually not what portepoch is about).
>
> Based on the arguments I've seen I think renaming the port to ncbi-blast-plus is the best solution - also for future users of the port.
>
> - Michael
Feel free if you want to rename it.  I considered adding '+' to the name 
when I created the port, but decided it was redundant since this is the 
only BLAST* implementation under development by NCBI. Given that the 
legacy NCBI blast is available as biology/ncbi-toolkit, the new NCBI 
BLAST+ port is uniquely identified by either ncbi-blast or ncbi-blast-plus.

I would argue that all BLAST* ports should be prefixed to indicate the 
specific implementation, e.g. ncbi-blast, wu-blast, etc.

     JB

-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
   Jason W. Bacon
   jwbacon at tds.net

   Circumstances don't make a man:
   They reveal him.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~