Re: Architecture question
Previously Taral wrote: I'm packaging acl2, which can take several hours to compile on a PPro 200. Would it be reasonable to exclude certain architectures as too slow? (acl2 is a theorem prover.) No. Wichert. -- / Generally uninteresting signature - ignore at your convenience \ | [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.liacs.nl/~wichert/ | | 1024D/2FA3BC2D 576E 100B 518D 2F16 36B0 2805 3CB8 9250 2FA3 BC2D |
Re: Architecture question
I'm packaging acl2, which can take several hours to compile on a PPro 200. Would it be reasonable to exclude certain architectures as too slow? (acl2 is a theorem prover.) No. The porters can make up their own minds about whether it's worth compiling for their architecture. We already have packages like XFree86 that take over a day to compile on slower platforms. p.
Re: Architecture question
On Sun, Apr 22, 2001 at 08:31:55PM +0200, Wichert Akkerman wrote: Previously Taral wrote: I'm packaging acl2, which can take several hours to compile on a PPro 200. Would it be reasonable to exclude certain architectures as too slow? (acl2 is a theorem prover.) No. Argeed. Lots of packages take several hours to build, even on fairly recent systems. Let the porter decide what to exclude in this case. -- ---===-=-==-=---==-=-- / Ben Collins -- ...on that fantastic voyage... -- Debian GNU/Linux \ ` [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] ' `---=--===-=-=-=-===-==---=--=---'
Re: Architecture question
On Sun, Apr 22, 2001 at 01:24:43PM -0500, Taral wrote: I'm packaging acl2, which can take several hours to compile on a PPro 200. Would it be reasonable to exclude certain architectures as too slow? (acl2 is a theorem prover.) eg your PPro 200? :-) Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
