Re: Dependency chart

["R.I.P. Deaddog" <maddog linuxhall org>]

On Mon, 3 Dec 2001, Malcolm Tredinnick wrote:

> > http://cle.org.hk/~baddog/files/GNOME2/gnome2-dependency.png
> >
> > Feel free to make comment; just don't try to tell me the chart
> > is ugly (I know it) :-)
>
> Nice (and I don't really mind the layout). A couple of things that jump
> out at me:
> 	- We have a libgnome module, not a libgnome2 module. Similarly
> 	  for libglade and gnome-vfs.

Oops, I'm still using the naming convention during the alpha 1 release.
Will fix them soon.


> 	- There should be a direct dependency link from libgnome to
> 	  gconf (because of gnome-gconf.h).

Hmmm, perhaps I should indicate in the chart that only the most prominent
dependency is shown (i.e. if A depends on B and B depends on C, then the
link between A and C is not drawn even though they have direct dependency),
because it would be too cluttered otherwise. Not only libgnome, but
libbonoboui, libgnomeprint etc have such dependencies too. If all of them
are presented correctly, the graph will be quite unreadable :)

Or maybe I'll find some way to present all the dependencies cleanly later.


> 	- I don't understand why some things are coloured as a "basic
> 	  package". Why are they special?

They are the building blocks. But you'll notice that some are quite
subjective (e.g. fam and openssl).

Abel