On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 09:22:45AM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > 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.
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. Friendly, Sven Luther
