e may be several independent trees or none at all if the
>relationships are cyclic.
Well, the OP said he wanted to start with a specific package, so it sounds
like he knows that will be the root of the tree. In addition, I don't
expect it's proper form for a dependency tre
Jeff 'Japhy' Pinyan wrote:
>
> >my %tree = { package1 => [ package2, package3, package4 ],
> > package2 => [ package7 ],
> > package3 => [ package5 ],
> > package4 => [ package7, package6],
> > package5 => [ ],
> > package6 => [ ],
>
Andrew Gaffney wrote:
>
> In a program I'm working on, I build a hash "tree" of sorts that contains
> package dependencies. Each key contains an array with the first level
> dependencies of the key. Each one of those dependencies have their own key with
> their first level dependencies in the hash.
On May 12, Andrew Gaffney said:
>> This sounds like postorder tree traversal to me:
>
>I've seen that term before when looking into this, but I don't know what
>it means.
I'd suggest bookmarking the wikipedia, it has a lot of encyclopedia-style
definitions (read, long texts and examples) of compu
Jeff 'japhy' Pinyan wrote:
On May 12, Andrew Gaffney said:
my %tree = { package1 => [ package2, package3, package4 ],
package2 => [ package7 ],
package3 => [ package5 ],
package4 => [ package7, package6],
package5 => [ ],
package6 => [ ]
In a program I'm working on, I build a hash "tree" of sorts that contains
package dependencies. Each key contains an array with the first level
dependencies of the key. Each one of those dependencies have their own key with
their first level dependencies in the hash. For example:
my %tree = { p
I am writing a Perl version of Gentoo Linux's Portage package management tool
just for the heck of it (and I think I can do it better (yes, I am full of
myself ;) )). I already have a good portion of the program done except for the
main part: building the dependency tree.
My progra
