On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 07:35:30AM -0800, David Fox wrote:
> but this requires the ocaml package, which pulls in lots of development
> libraries like libc6-dev which we don't want on our normal system. I
> developed the attached patch to 3.06 which splits out an ocaml-interp
> package, it would be great for me if this was made part of the normal
> packaging. I think it would help promote ocaml as a Perl alternative.
I like the idea, I also use often ocaml as an interpreted script
language.
Anyway I'm wondering if it's better to ship a new ocaml-interp package
or move the stuff you mention in your patch from ocaml to ocaml-base ...
Moving the stuff shouldn't break anything since packages depending on
ocaml-base still have in it all they need as well as package needing
ocaml (since it depends on ocaml-base).
Ocaml-base is suppose to separe the stuff needed to execute an ocaml
"program" from the stuff needed to compile an ocaml source. Just extend
our meaning of program from bytecode to script ...
Ok, now is your turn to point me to the drawback of my proposal.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli -- Master in Computer Science @ Uni. Bologna, Italy
zack@{cs.unibo.it,debian.org,bononia.it} - http://www.bononia.it/zack/
" I know you believe you understood what you think I said, but I am not
sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant! " -- G.Romney
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature