So sprach »Cain Brian-BCAIN1« am 2001-12-05 um 10:37:53 -0600 :
> 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".
Did you read Juans mail? He explained that he wants to have multiple
kernels, so that newer kernels get into cooker faster. Before the new
naming scheme, cooker stayed with old kernels, because the Mandrakes
were afraid to break Cooker by introducing a bad kernel.
The way it is now, Cooker can hava a known good kernel (named »kernel«)
plus as many test kernels as you wish. I honestly think that this is an
improvement. However, I do not agree with the new naming scheme.
PS:
a) Don't cc me! I read the list!
b) Your lines are *WAY* too long! Keep it down to ~72 chars!
Alexander Skwar
--
>> Wohnung in Gelsenkirchen und Umgebung gesucht! <<
iso-top.de - Die günstige Art an Linux Distributionen zu kommen
Uptime: 22 hours 49 minutes
