By the way daniel vainsencher did that with his analysis tool: goruping 
together packages with circular dependencies.

Stef

On 24 févr. 05, at 17:35, Ned Konz wrote:

> On Wednesday 23 February 2005 10:25 pm, Colin Putney wrote:
>> I quite like Alan Lovejoy's characterization of packages as units of
>> separately deployable code, and I hope that doesn't get overlooked in
>> the all the discussion of versioning, categories, namespaces,
>> dependencies and so on. All those things are necessary to some degree,
>> since they are ways of dealing with the additional complexity that a
>> packaged image brings with it, but they're not end goals in 
>> themselves.
>> Separately-deployable packages is what we're after.
>
> Yes, and as Robert Martin points out, that means that if two packages 
> depend
> on each other, then they may as well be considered parts of the same 
> package,
> because you can't version them separately.
>
> So much of the refactoring work in complicated systems amounts to 
> removing
> these circular dependencies so you can develop packages at different 
> rates.
>
> -- 
> Ned Konz
> http://bike-nomad.com/squeak/
>