On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 02:32:42AM -0400, Kaiting Chen wrote:
On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 11:32 AM, David C. Rankin < drankinatty@suddenlinkmail.com> wrote:
On 04/06/2011 10:34 PM, Heiko Baums wrote:
Upstream stability makes sense. If redhat is behind cronie, then that
seems like the logical choice.
Why is this logical? Is it the developer what makes a software good or is it the features and the stability? If Redhat's cronie has less features than fcron then fcron is the logical choice, of course.
You are correct. The long term stability was just my thought. Like I said earlier in my message -- It doesn't matter to me which cron we have -- as long as we have one that works :) I have no say in the matter, so I will, of course, defer to whatever decision you guys reach. I just want to make sure we have a cron by default :)
So what's the status here? I pulled cronie into [community-testing] a couple of days ago and will probably merge it into [community] soon. So that's the one I vote.
But regardless of which one we choose in my opinion the sooner we get rid of dcron the better. --Kaiting.
I don't want to be pedantic, but what's the point of that? Moving arbitrary cron daemons that no one uses to [community] is nonsense (according to the TU guidelines, you shouldn't even have moved it without prior discussion and consensus on aur-general at all - but as I said before, I don't want to be pedantic here...) Adding yet another cron daemon to our repositories makes sense as soon as there's a clear decision to switch default daemons. Just moving low usage stuff to [community] because you're able to do so definitely doesn't...