Re: patch - add an ocaml-interp binary package

[Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr>]

On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 08:26:01PM +0100, Sylvain LE GALL wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 07:14:16AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 09:58:22PM +0100, Sylvain LE GALL wrote:
> > > Even though i am not a DD, i just want to raise my hand and say that is
> > > a good idea ( i also develop some script in ocaml, and it should be a
> > > good idea to have a rather small package that give access to ocaml ).
> > 
> > Rather small ? It is 3Mo installed size though.
> > 
> > With each of the .cma and the ocaml interpreter taking about 1Mo each.
> > 
> gildor@grand:~$ apt-cache show perl     
> Package: perl
> Priority: standard
> Section: perl
> Installed-Size: 10380kB
> 
> gildor@grand:~$ apt-cache show perl-base
> Package: perl-base
> Essential: yes
> Priority: required
> Section: base
> Installed-Size: 1956kB
> 
> gildor@grand:~$ apt-cache show ruby1.8
> Package: ruby1.8
> Priority: optional
> Section: interpreters
> Installed-Size: 124kB
> 
> gildor@grand:~$ apt-cache show libruby1.8 ( cause it is a Depend )
> Package: libruby1.8
> Priority: optional
> Section: libs
> Installed-Size: 2224kB
> 
> gildor@grand:~$ apt-cache show python2.3 ( and i doesn't include Depend )
> Package: python2.3
> Priority: standard
> Section: python
> Installed-Size: 8716kB
> 
> ... In other word, does size really matter ?
> 
> I think 3Mo package is not so big ( the winner is perl-base, but i think
> we could be of approximatively this size ).

Nope, i will not make a huge package out of ocaml-base. It is not worth
it, and the ledit examples shows that it is not a good idea. 

I will make a ocaml-toplevel though, but i believe that the individual
libraries are not worth it to be split. The -dev package as to be used
for them.

Friendly,

Sven Luther