On 21.04.2011 08:32, 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 second this suggestion. cronie upstream isn't dead at all. cronie is a drop-in unlike fcron which was favored earlier. Kaiting said he would even be willing to become a developer to maintain this in [core] himself in case no other developer was interested. Is there anything that would keep us from making it default and also replace dcron? -- Sven-Hendrik