On Mon, Nov 04, 2013 at 09:32:10AM -0500, Charles Wilson wrote: >On 10/30/2013 9:51 AM, Ryan Johnson wrote: >> On 30/10/2013 8:48 AM, Charles Wilson wrote: >>> Yeah; even for my stripped-down version, I need to pre-process the >>> setup.ini and remove all mentions of cygwin, libstdc++6, libgcc1, etc. >>> The ncurses DLLs are also a huge nexus. (It's probably easier to >>> exclude those nodes by mucking with the perl, but...) >> Quick question: do you have 1+ known-big-unwanted packages and need to >> know who's pulling them in, or are you hoping to take some cut of the >> graph that gets as many desirable packages as possible given the space >> constraints? The graph-building script here is good for the latter, but >> I had the impression you were doing the former; if so, my script might >> get you to an answer faster by avoiding information overload. > >A combination of the two, actually. I've used both David's script and >yours in concert. In addition, I've modified David's script to color >the nodes based on origination, and to exclude or collapse 'Base' and/or >'required-by-Base' packages. > >I've got a few cleanups, and then I'll share the result. It's already >helped me generate a few re-packaging requests I plan to post over on >cygwin-apps...
Is this packagable? It sounds pretty interesting. Would it be crazy to generate this and make it available on the cygwin web site? Or would the dependency graph generation overload sourceware.org? -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
