From: Mikhail Zotov on
On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 05:46:53 +0000 (UTC)
Sylvain Robitaille <syl(a)alcor.concordia.ca> wrote:

> Mikhail Zotov wrote:
....
> > P.S. IMHO, recompiling Slackware `from scratch' can be an
> > interesting exercise but will most likely be a waste of time.
>
> Unless the goal is to have Slackware running on an architecture for
> which it is not officially available. Not every computer has an x86
> or x86_64 compatible CPU.

Bravo, Sylvain. This is a point everybody else missed.

--
Mikhail

P.S. BTW, what are the chances the OP is interested to compile Slack
for a device not compatible with x86*? ;-)

From: Loki Harfagr on
Mon, 19 Apr 2010 20:12:39 +0000, Sylvain Robitaille did cat :

> Mikhail Zotov wrote:
>
>> P.S. BTW, what are the chances the OP is interested to compile Slack
>> for a device not compatible with x86*? ;-)
>
> greater than zero ...

but most certainly only for extremely small values of 'one' ;-)
From: Sylvain Robitaille on
Mikhail Zotov wrote:

> P.S. BTW, what are the chances the OP is interested to compile Slack
> for a device not compatible with x86*? ;-)

greater than zero ...

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sylvain Robitaille syl(a)encs.concordia.ca

Systems analyst / AITS Concordia University
Faculty of Engineering and Computer Science Montreal, Quebec, Canada
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Grant on
On 20 Apr 2010 07:11:03 GMT, Loki Harfagr <l0k1(a)thedarkdesign.free.fr.INVALID> wrote:

>Mon, 19 Apr 2010 20:12:39 +0000, Sylvain Robitaille did cat :
>
>> Mikhail Zotov wrote:
>>
>>> P.S. BTW, what are the chances the OP is interested to compile Slack
>>> for a device not compatible with x86*? ;-)
>>
>> greater than zero ...
>
>but most certainly only for extremely small values of 'one' ;-)

Reminds me of '2 + 2 = 5, for higher values of two' :o)

Grant.
--
http://bugs.id.au/