>      A great idea!  Hehe, have someone else's machine do my kernel 
>      compiling for me... hehehe... I like it...
>      
>      Hmm... needing one box of each type would be a pain thats true... what 
>      about cross-compiling with gcc?  never looked into it so I dont really 
>      know squat about it...

	That could be quite messy, esp. from the point of view of port
specific kernel options (like CPU type) at the configuration side, plus
disc space overheads of having several cross-compilers/linkers.

>      This would be quite intensive on resources on the server side im sure 
>      ;)

	nice 18 springs to mind.  This would obviously slow down the
compiles, but would make the running of the system almost transparent.

>      maybe keep a cache of kernels on line so that if you specify options 
>      that someone else has already asked for before, it will just dig it up 
>      from the cache instead of re-compiling it from scratch.  this would be 
>      faster and reduce the number of compiles executed.

	I think it would be quite tricky to do a direct comparision of two
compiles, and keeping loads on disk would also take a lot of space, but
keeping some from say, the last seven days along with their configuration
details would be handy.  Also, regular builds of extremely common
("standard") configurations from -current? 

Cheers,
David.