I guess, the discussion is about including fcron into /core and on installation media. From this perspective, having two daemons might be a deal breaker. Leonid. On (11/07/10 21:09), Heiko Baums wrote: --> Am Sun, 7 Nov 2010 13:57:50 -0500 --> schrieb Kaiting Chen <kaitocracy@gmail.com>: --> --> > I think fcron is kind of heavy for most users. I'd rather we switch to --> > cronie, which is the descendent of vixie-cron. It's developed by --> > RedHat, well maintained, supports PAM and SELinux and can be built --> > with anacron features. --> --> I disagree with Kaiting, because cronie doesn't have anacron features. --> --> If it's compiled with --enable-anacron there is no anacron feature --> compiled into cronie. Instead there is a separate anacron daemon --> compiled and that makes it unnecessarily complicated in using and --> configuring it. And people who need anacron features have to run two --> daemons and configure two daemons. --> --> With fcron you have all in one and need to run and configure only one --> daemon. And fcron is by far not bloated and complicated to configure. --> Instead there are several ways to configure fcron like crontab, scripts --> in /etc/cron.{daily,weekly,monthly} and in /etc/cron.d. And to use --> anacron features you only need to prefix a crontab entry with an @. --> --> So I think fcron is much more flexible, much easier to configure and to --> use than cronie, and has features for rather every use case. --> --> And, please, don't make such a regression again. --> --> Btw., cronie is in AUR since May and still has only 1 vote while fcron --> is proven to run very well since years. --> --> Heiko -- lisaev@svibor