On Fri 12 Nov 2010 10:26 +0900, Alex Matviychuk wrote:
Thanks to this thread I decided to look at both dcron and fcron. First google result for dcron led me to this:
This is from a Linux From Scratch readme here: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/hints/downloads/files/dcron.txt
Nice. The guy who wrote that article is an Archer and former TU. It's also from 7 years ago. I'm sure a good deal has changed since.
From my naive point of view, it seems like dcron is more in line with the Arch Way.
In response to the initial concern about a bug in dcron, don't we have anyone in our userbase that could take a look at the dcron code? As far as updates, I wouldn't expect a basic mature package to be updated more than once or twice a year. Update frequency alone says nothing about the quality of the code.
My vote would be to focus efforts on fixing the bug and to keep Arch as small and lightweight as possible at its base. One of the best parts of Arch for me is that it starts out minimalistic and you can extend it to make it fit your needs. Trying to make our favorite packages defaults instead of minimal, stable, small packages, is a mistake imho.
The only problem is finding someone who can do the work to maintain dcron. It's pretty damning to have a scheduler that can't schedule properly installed by default - that's what people seem to be concerned about mostly. I'd like to keep the simpler package too, but if it ain't working chuck it.