Bug#464586: texlive packages' dependencies (was: Bug#464586: n/a, really)
On Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 7:51 PM, Frank Küster <email@example.com> wrote:
> Why do you disagree? Just because you had some "feeling" about what
> Depends means, but were not aware of the policy definition? Or do you
> have reasons which are still valid after that citation?
Indeed, I had a different definition, namely 'runs without errors which could
be solved by installing additional packages'.
I wasn't aware there was an official definition, as well.
> That would probably be *one* large meta-package. You know, if you try to
> create one that approximates texlive-latex-extra, you'll have to include
> one additional package from generic-extra because of invoice. You'll
> also need most of texlive-latex-recommended (see #385213). And that are
> only the relationships I am aware of at the moment, there are already
> some in our BTS and/or the upstream mailing list.
There is only one way to really find that out, but which would not be feasible
without automation. A parser that goes through all packages, looks for includes
and saves that information into a directed graph. With some visualisation, it
would be possible to seperate the graph into subgraphs.
Of course, cyclic paths would make that approach harder, the resulting
meta-packages larger or as large as the full set of nodes.
Also, this does not account for which packages are popular and which are not.
This kind of information would probably be useful at CTAN, as well.