Re: patch - add an ocaml-interp binary package
On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 08:28:48PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> 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
Ok, no problem for me... ocaml-toplevel is perfect.
Kind regard
Sylvain LE GALL
Reply to: