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. > > > [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 ).
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
