Re: patch - add an ocaml-interp binary package

["Sylvain LE GALL" <sylvain.le-gall@polytechnique.org>]

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 ).

Regard
Sylvain LE GALL