> -----Original Message----- > From: Alexander Skwar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > So sprach »Yves Duret« am 2001-12-05 um 15:00:24 +0100 : > > patches from everywhere without the risk of breaking > cooker. if the new one is > > stable enough, the older goes away and so on... > > Hm, if that's the goal, what about having: > > Name: kernel ... > and for the experimental kernel: > > Name: kernel-test ... > > This would allow the kernel hackers to experiment with a kernel, while ...
Isn't this the whole purpose for Cooker? I use cooker on my "production" machine, knowing all along that it shouldn't be considered stable. It seems like you're advocating yet another unstable branch for Mandrake Linux? The only reason I could see that there would be a need for it is if you think that there should be three branches - "stable", "kinda stable", "experimental". The simplest solution for your problem would probably be just to use Mandrake kernel (and otherwise) rpms, and stay away from Cooker rpms. -Brian
