Re: [gentoo-dev] Reverse dependency Scanning

2005-04-25 Thread Thomas de Grenier de Latour
On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 14:52:18 +0200 Paul de Vrieze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Making the diagram vertical would probably be a big improvement. Yep, that's very true. I've uploaded (same url) a new version which adds 'rankdir=LR' to the graph, and I also think it's much more readable this way (on

Re: [gentoo-dev] Reverse dependency Scanning

2005-04-25 Thread Paul de Vrieze
On Monday 25 April 2005 11:29, Spider wrote: > On Mon, 2005-04-25 at 03:51 +0200, Thomas de Grenier de Latour wrote: > > I've made a small python wrapper around depreverse, which is > > available here: http://tdegreni.free.fr/gentoo/dotfinder.py > > > > It has a similar purpose as your "finder.sh"

Re: [gentoo-dev] Reverse dependency Scanning

2005-04-25 Thread Spider
On Mon, 2005-04-25 at 03:51 +0200, Thomas de Grenier de Latour wrote: > I've made a small python wrapper around depreverse, which is > available here: http://tdegreni.free.fr/gentoo/dotfinder.py > > It has a similar purpose as your "finder.sh" wrapper, but outputs > its results as a graph in dot

Re: [gentoo-dev] Reverse dependency Scanning

2005-04-24 Thread Thomas de Grenier de Latour
I've made a small python wrapper around depreverse, which is available here: http://tdegreni.free.fr/gentoo/dotfinder.py It has a similar purpose as your "finder.sh" wrapper, but outputs its results as a graph in dot format (with 4 layers: requested packages, contents files, depended-on files, an

Re: [gentoo-dev] Reverse dependency Scanning

2005-04-23 Thread Spider
On Sat, 2005-04-23 at 14:21 +0200, Thomas de Grenier de Latour wrote: > On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 12:15:32 +0200 > Spider <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > So, I know it isn't foolproof, don't expect it to be. However, > > feedback would be nice, patches and so on. > > I think that for binaries you

Re: [gentoo-dev] Reverse dependency Scanning

2005-04-23 Thread Thomas de Grenier de Latour
On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 12:15:32 +0200 Spider <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So, I know it isn't foolproof, don't expect it to be. However, > feedback would be nice, patches and so on. I think that for binaries you could filter the ldd output to keep only the libs that are directly linked to, since

Re: [gentoo-dev] Reverse dependency Scanning

2005-04-23 Thread Juergen Hoetzel
Why not reverse it: 1. *DONT* unmerge an old lib (the *.so.* file) if the soname changes due an upgrade. Just leave this single file on the file-system 2. Scan your system in regular intervals for unused old shared libs This seems much simpler and doesn't break systems. Jürgen > Well, thi