Florian La Roche wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 06, 2009 at 12:07:56PM -0500, Troy Dawson wrote:
>> Hello All,
>> I've been doing some work on getting graphviz updated, and I'd like some
>> opinions on some things.
>>
>> Looking at the various source rpm's, including our original one, I
>> really like the one that actually comes from graphviz. It is very well
>> written and self documented.
>> But there are a couple of problems.
>>
>> 1 - By default, graphviz-lua isn't built. In SL 5 we have the package
>> graphviz-lua but lua isn't in Scientific Linux 5. Does anyone mind if we
>> drop graphviz-lua from the release?
>>
>> 2 - By default, graphviz-ocaml isn't built. In SL 5 we have the package
>> graphviz-ocaml, but ocaml, or even caml, isn't in Scientific Linux 5.
>> Does anyone mind if we drop graphviz-ocaml from the release?
>>
>> 3 - By default, graphviz-php isn't built. In SL 5 we have the package
>> graphviz-php. But the build is failing whenever we try to build
>> graphviz-php. I'm worried that we need a newer version of php for this
>> to build. Does anyone mind if we drop graphviz-php from the release?
>> If nobody is using it, then I'm not sure if it is worth the effort to
>> debug the build. But if some people are using it, then I'll give it
>> some more work.
>>
>> 4 - By default, PANGOCAIRO is turned on. Florian La Roche wants this
>> turned off so that it doesn't pull in all the Pango and Cairo
>> dependancies. But when I look at Cairo and Pango, it says
>> "Cairo is a vector graphics library designed to provide high-quality
>> display and print output."
>> "Pango is a system for layout and rendering of internationalized text."
>> To my untrained eye, it really looks like we want this. graphviz is
>> used all around the world, and don't people want the printouts and
>> displays to look nice?
>>
>> Thoughts from everyone?
>
>
> Hello Troy,
>
> minimal investigation shows the following two bugzilla entries at Red Hat:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=468093
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=447133
>
> The current Fedora rpm package does contain gnome/cairo/pango deps,
> so I would keep them, but then think about a
subrpm with dot,nop included
???
I don't understand this
and also move in the apps which do not have lots of dependencies.
But the point is, if nobody has asked for them, or used them for several
years, why bring them in. It would add to the support load without
benefiting anyone.
Troy
--
__________________________________________________
Troy Dawson [log in to unmask] (630)840-6468
Fermilab ComputingDivision/LCSI/CSI LMSS Group
__________________________________________________
|
