Hi, On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 11:40:40AM -0300, Antonio Terceiro wrote: > That seems intimidating! :-/ > I tried to mark which dependencies in the Gemfile should not be > strictly required (mainly development tools) to try achieving a more > tractable dependency graph. > I tried to re-generate the graph myself but failed miserably. Cédric, > could you give a hand with this? > Attached you will find an annotated version of gitlab Gemfile, where the > lines marked with @debian indicate dependencies that should not be > needed for a Debian package (Gemfile.debian); and a "clean" Gemfile > resulting from `grep -v debian Gemfile.debian` (Gemfile), that could be > a base for a reduced dependency graph. Thanks Antonio for this cleaned Gemfile. I extracted from it the names of the gems, and generated a new graph http://people.debian.org/~boutil/gitlab/gitlab_deps20130123.pdf which looks (a bit) less intimidating than the previous one. The legend is still the same: > > green is in Debian > > yellow is waiting in NEW > > orange is ITP > > purple is RFP Again, this script is very naive, and does not do any version check, and uses only dependency information provided by the gems and advertised on rubygems.org, but at least, it is a starting point. I should try to do the same sort of cleaning for diaspora, since I blindly took all the entries of the gemfile... Cheers, Cédric
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature