On 2019/04/18 06:34, Alessandro DE LAURENZIS wrote:
> I think 'graphics' is more appropriate as category.
agreed.
> > DESCR
> > =====
> > xdot.py is an interactive viewer for graphs written in Graphviz's dot
> > language. It uses internally the GraphViz's xdot output format as an
> > intermediate format, Python GTK bindings, and Cairo for rendering.
> >
> > xdot.py can be used either as a standalone application from command
> > line, or as a library embedded in your Python application.
> >
> > The main intent of this port is to enable graphical representation of
> > the selected part of the design in cad/yosys (which uses xdot by
> > default); nonetheless, this is a very handy and (moderately) lightweight
> > tool, probably of general interest.
> >
> > Some doubts:
> >
> > - is "math" the right category? Or "graphics" would be more appropriate?
> >
> > - is the package name ok or should it be changed in "py-xdot"?
If it had py2 support as well, I'd suggest multi-packages: py-xdot /
py3-xdot (for the module), and xdot (for the main script, depending on
py3-xdot). But since it's py3-only that seems overkill.
Could go either way really. I think xdot is ok though.
> > - the pypi tarball doesn't include the tests, which I instead enabled
> > using the one from github; is this acceptable?
I usually prefer pypi over github, because pypi uses uploaded files
rather than autogenerated ones which are subject to change. It depends
how useful the tests are really.
: RUN_DEPENDS = math/graphviz \
: devel/py-gobject3 \
That should be devel/py-gobject3${MODPY_FLAVOR}
: do-test:
: cd ${WRKSRC}/tests && ../test.py *.dot
: cd ${WRKSRC}/tests && ../test.py graphs/*.gv
If staying with github + tests, I'd prefer an explit ${MODPY_BIN} for these,
e.g.
cd ${WRKSRC}/tests && ${MODPY_BIN} ../test.py *.dot
