On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 08:39:45PM +0100, Ralf Treinen wrote: > On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 08:06:12PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 10:54:56AM -0800, David Fox wrote: > > > Sven Luther wrote: > > > > > > >That said, i could make a ocaml-interpreter package, which would be > > > >provided, replaced and conflicted by the ocaml package. What do you > > > >think of that ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I was thinking that since the ocaml-interpreter is all files that are > > > currently part of the ocaml package, you could make ocaml depend on > > > ocaml-interpreter and make ocaml-interpreter depend on ocaml-base. > > > > Yep, i understand, but ocaml-interpreter is part of the ocaml package. > > So either you get the true thing (ocaml) or only the interpreter. > > But when you split the ocaml package as David suggested and put the > interpreter in a separate package and remove it from the ocaml > package. Why wouldn't that work? As we did before when creating > the ocaml-base package?
It would too. but then, it would be one more packages. If there is no further objection, i will do that when i upload the bignum fixed version. Also, we could rename ocaml-base as ocaml-runtime, and have ocaml-base contain the interpreter. Friendly, Sven Luther
