Re: patch - add an ocaml-interp binary package
On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 10:43:07AM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> Sven Luther said:
> >> 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).
> > Well, the main turning point is that ocaml as interpreter stays a
> > marginal thing, and adding the toplevel and its libs will make
> > ocmal-base bigger, maybe too big ?
> >
> > ocaml-base installed size is 400Ko, while the interpreter stuff is
> > above 3Mo.
>
> Do you think this difference is worth creating a new package? Actually I
> don't know the answer to this question. Maybe we can compare the size of
> the resulting package (3 Mb) with the size on the other interpreters.
> Actually I've no debian box at hand (crappy webmailer) but we can compare
> with the size of the perl an python packages at least ...
> Without doing these comparison I think that pollute the dpkg archive is
> more a problem than adding 3 Mb to a package, but is just a personal view.
> Cheers
Keep in mind that each bytecode package would requite this. Currently
the ocaml-base package is 156678 on x86, i guess that the the
ocaml-interp package would be 1Mo more or less, that is acounting for a
1/3 compression ratio, maybe it will be a bit more though, don't know.
So, if you want to run ledit, you would need to download 1Mo of
packages, instead of just 150Ko + 27Ko of ledit.
That said, ledit is only an about 100Ko executable, i wonder what David
put in its scripts to make them 500+ Ko like he said.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: