[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Package Graphs (was: truetype something something)

On Thu, 20 Apr 2000, Jim Studt wrote:

> I would like to package the Graphviz[1] graph drawing program.  It will require
> access to at least one TrueType font.  Debian does not appear to have even a 
> minimal set of fonts.

Package it!! Don't worry about the true types, just compile in the
truetype path as /usr/share/fonts/truetype and other people can worry
about that for the moment.. The program is still perfectly usable for
writing ps files and others. You should probably also arrange for it to
link to our freetype .so rather than it's internal one (ik)

Anyhow.. My evil ulterior motive..

I have arranged for apt-cache to be able to emit files that dot can read
to describe the directed cyclic graph that is our package relations.
Now, it is not possible to actually graph the whole distribution you can show
little subsets of it. The results are pretty cool.

http://www.debian.org/~jgg/dcg/ has some examples,

debconf.png - A graph starting at debconf. Fear. debconf touches
              both perl and some gnome stuff.
x.png - A graph of all the X packages with a stop placed at debconf
gcc.png - Starting at gcc/g++
base.png - The 75 base packages without recursion out of the set. This one
           is worth looking at, it is really nice.
e.ps.gz - Starting at Enlightenment, showing much of gnome's base (need gv
          at about 2x zoom to read this)

Carefull, the images are rendered at 2352x992 pixels. The postscript
versions are zoomable, if you have the ram for it. There may be some minor
discrepencies in the output due to bugs, 3amness and 'mixed
virtual packages'.. Nothing too horrible.

Oh, only depends/conflicts/pre-depends are shown.

   Normal packages are boxes
   Pure Provides are triangles
   Mixed Provides are diamonds
   Hexagons are missing packages
   Orange boxes mean recursion was stopped [leaf packages]
   Blue lines are PreDepends
   Green lines are Conflicts


Reply to: