Re: Architecture question

2001-04-22 Thread Hamish Moffatt
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 P

Re: Architecture question

2001-04-22 Thread Ben Collins
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

Re: Architecture question

2001-04-22 Thread Philip Blundell
>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 p

Re: Architecture question

2001-04-22 Thread Wichert Akkerman
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. -- / Genera