This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: setup.ini dependency graph?
- From: Ryan Johnson <ryan dot johnson at cs dot utoronto dot ca>
- To: cygwin at cygwin dot com
- Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2013 11:44:07 -0500
- Subject: Re: setup.ini dependency graph?
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <526A986D dot 9040202 at cwilson dot fastmail dot fm> <526B8DF9 dot 5000004 at tiscali dot co dot uk> <5271000D dot 7000604 at cwilson dot fastmail dot fm> <52710EC5 dot 2020403 at cs dot utoronto dot ca> <5277AFEA dot 9060404 at cwilson dot fastmail dot fm> <20131104160032 dot GB5526 at ednor dot casa dot cgf dot cx>
On 04/11/2013 11:00 AM, Christopher Faylor wrote:
Throwing graphviz at a full cygwin package dependency graph would make a
pretty effective DoS attack. Smaller graphs are cheaper, but still
consume non-trivial compute. Given how slowly the online regexp package
search goes, I'd hesitate to give users more ways to overload the server...
On Mon, Nov 04, 2013 at 09:32:10AM -0500, Charles Wilson wrote:
On 10/30/2013 9:51 AM, Ryan Johnson wrote:
On 30/10/2013 8:48 AM, Charles Wilson wrote:
Yeah; even for my stripped-down version, I need to pre-process the
setup.ini and remove all mentions of cygwin, libstdc++6, libgcc1, etc.
The ncurses DLLs are also a huge nexus. (It's probably easier to
exclude those nodes by mucking with the perl, but...)
Quick question: do you have 1+ known-big-unwanted packages and need to
know who's pulling them in, or are you hoping to take some cut of the
graph that gets as many desirable packages as possible given the space
constraints? The graph-building script here is good for the latter, but
I had the impression you were doing the former; if so, my script might
get you to an answer faster by avoiding information overload.
A combination of the two, actually. I've used both David's script and
yours in concert. In addition, I've modified David's script to color
the nodes based on origination, and to exclude or collapse 'Base' and/or
I've got a few cleanups, and then I'll share the result. It's already
helped me generate a few re-packaging requests I plan to post over on
Is this packagable? It sounds pretty interesting.
Would it be crazy to generate this and make it available on the cygwin
web site? Or would the dependency graph generation overload
What about calling out to graphviz from setup.exe (if found in %PATH%),
as a replacement/supplement for the flat list of dependencies it
currently reports? That would put all processing on the client, and
limit the "big data" problem, as the graph only contains packages a user
is currently trying to install.
Alternatively, cygcheck could gain a new -g option to dump subsets of a
dependency graph, extracted from setup.ini, in some appropriate format
`cygcheck -D -g python' would emit the graph of packages that python
`cygcheck -R -g texlive,xorg-server' would build a braph of packages
that pull in either of texlive or xorg-server (reverse dependencies)
-D -R -g would follow dependencies in both directions, and -g would be
shorthand for -D -g; probably -D or -R by itself implies -g.
The actual work could be done by calling out to a scripting language
that ships with cygwin. Awk would probably be able to, and perl
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple