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. > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ apt-cache show perl Package: perl Priority: standard Section: perl Installed-Size: 10380kB
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ apt-cache show perl-base Package: perl-base Essential: yes Priority: required Section: base Installed-Size: 1956kB [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ apt-cache show ruby1.8 Package: ruby1.8 Priority: optional Section: interpreters Installed-Size: 124kB [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ apt-cache show libruby1.8 ( cause it is a Depend ) Package: libruby1.8 Priority: optional Section: libs Installed-Size: 2224kB [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ 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
