In gmane.comp.lang.caml.inria, you wrote:
> 2010/5/14 Dmitry Bely <dmitry.bely@gmail.com>
>
>> How "heavy-weight" is Camomile? I was a bit scared with the size of
>> its distribution. Currently I use under Windows the following my own
>> simple Unicode-support module (implemented via
>> WideCharToMultiByte/MultiByteToWideChar Win32 API functions). Maybe
>> it's time to switch to Camomile?
>>
>>
> The size of the package is due to mapping tables of character encoding and
> localization data.  they occupy several mega bytes on the disk but it is
> nothing by today's standard.  If you still care, you can delete any .mar
> files in charmaps, locales, mappings directory.  (Deleting source files in
> these directory is not recommended, since it could cause a failure of
> compilation.)  If you delete such files, related encoding and locales do not
> function, but other functionality is intact.
>

I have just compared libcamomile-ocaml-data and locales-all packages.
The two packages contain almost the same thing:
http://packages.debian.org/sid/libcamomile-ocaml-data
http://packages.debian.org/sid/locales-all

The size is almost the same (3MB vs 5MB) but the uncompressed size is
not at all the same:
- camomile: 24MB
- locales-all (2 steps uncompression): 99MB

At least it means that camomile data is a reasonable size for this kind
of data on Linux system. On Windows system, I think these figures are
almost the same but data are part of the base windows installation.

Now, a question/suggestion/feature: is it possible to store .mar file
as .mar.gz? This would help to reduce occupation by a factor of 5...

Regards
Sylvain Le Gall