3 ms·

I'm not sure what the problem is here. Looks like there's a large, very functional, set of systems that have a lot of reuse. Would it be better if there wasn'

I'm not sure what the problem is here. Looks like there's a large, very functional, set of systems that have a lot of reuse. Would it be better if there wasn't the reuse? Or if the system was less functional?

udp 15y ago
Exactly. This is code reuse done properly, not "dependency hell".
- dcESC 15y ago
  The graph was partially motivated by the experience of compiling a few open source projects in windows. In Gentoo it's not "dependency hell".
  - udp 15y ago
    Why didn't you call it something non-controversial like "A visualisation of open-source software dependencies" instead of "A nice picture of (dependency) hell", then?
    - davidw 15y ago
      The obvious answer is that the former would not generate nearly so much interest/clicks/attention.
    - dcESC 15y ago
      Sensationalism? If you would like a post with a less controversial name, have a look at "High resolution dependency graph". Sorry if you felt cheated by the title :)
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
    - dcESC 15y ago
      Forgot password of first account. Coming up and remembering passwords are equally hard
lrizzo 15y ago
It is a dependency hell, ready to fire at the moment one of the packages changes its interface (API, behaviour, file layout, ...) recursively breaking a fraction of its dependents. Then you end up with multiple versions of the same package, versioned libraries, private copies of libraries and tools, and so on. Reuse works great on a small scale, but otherwise requires a lot of discipline both from the provider (who must refrain from interface changes, or have support for multiple versions from day one), and the consumer (who should be very considerate on which packages and features he uses).