Re: Joe Walnes feedback on "ComponentHaus now does full dependency trees"

> > Lots of complexity in these ideas, but I'd like to see guided
> > installation like Joe describes.
>
> heck, why not just copy what debian does? :)

I was thinking that too.  But there are two things annoying me, and I need
to talk it through with others, coz these dark finnish evenings are giving
me zero inspiration :-)

1 I believe we need to keep tight on the scope of CH in the near term,
because I think its important to get something simple and functional up and
running asap.  The danger is that we get drawn down a rathole implementing
some cool feature in great depth, like ultra-complete dependency support,
instead of getting some of the most useful stuff done in a somewhat
satisfactory way and gradually deepening the system's capabilities.  Thats
why I would be shy of beginning this kind of feature now (apart from the
more sobering fact that I don't fully grok all the ins and outs of it :-)).

2 Do you think there is value in showing this kind of dependency stuff
graphically?  If so, how?  That tree structure thats on CH right now sucks
eggs when it comes to displaying optional dependencies, because the fact
that certain jars are optional is hidden in the larger tree.  I'm failing to
come up with a good graphical representation.  I've tried two linked but
separate trees, a table.  Now I'm trying UML package diagrams.  So if any of
you have good ideas in this area, please holler.

Thanks,
Mike.

PS If you agree with point 1, what features would you consider essential
before CH could be releaseable?