From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S263922AbTE0Pj7 (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 May 2003 11:39:59 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263925AbTE0Pj7 (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 May 2003 11:39:59 -0400 Received: from holomorphy.com ([66.224.33.161]:46310 "EHLO holomorphy") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S263922AbTE0Pj4 (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 May 2003 11:39:56 -0400 Date: Tue, 27 May 2003 08:52:59 -0700 From: William Lee Irwin III To: John Stoffel Cc: DevilKin-LKML , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Linux 2.5.70 compile error Message-ID: <20030527155259.GK8978@holomorphy.com> Mail-Followup-To: William Lee Irwin III , John Stoffel , DevilKin-LKML , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <200305271048.36495.devilkin-lkml@blindguardian.org> <20030527130515.GH8978@holomorphy.com> <200305271729.49047.devilkin-lkml@blindguardian.org> <20030527153619.GJ8978@holomorphy.com> <16083.35048.737099.575241@gargle.gargle.HOWL> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <16083.35048.737099.575241@gargle.gargle.HOWL> Organization: The Domain of Holomorphy User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, May 27, 2003 at 11:48:56AM -0400, John Stoffel wrote: > Subarchitecture Type (PC-compatible, Voyager (NCR), NUMAQ (IBM/Sequent), Summit/EXA (IBM x440), Support for other sub-arch SMP systems with more than 8 CPUs, SGI 320/540 (Visual Workstation), Generic architecture (Summit, bigsmp, default)) [PC-compatible] (NEW) > What the hell am I supposed to enter here? This is just friggin ugly > and un-readable. It should be cleaned up. Or is it just that the > help entry is appended to the question improperly here? That's sorta > what it looks like peering at it with my head turned to the left all > the way. If you don't know, then just hit "enter". On Tue, May 27, 2003 at 11:48:56AM -0400, John Stoffel wrote: > Are these choices all mutually exclusive? Or can you build a kernel > which will run on all these machines? Now that would be interesting > for a distro to have... not. *grin* Yes, they're mutually exclusive. You can't build one that will run on all those machines because the programming isn't done right for that. But the generic architecture option will run on at least 3. -- wli