[arch-general] [arch-dev-public] Cron

[Sven-Hendrik Haase]

On 06.01.2010 16:56, Aaron Griffin wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 5:03 PM, Jim Pryor
> <lists+arch-general at jimpryor.net> wrote:
>   
>> On Mon, Jan 04, 2010 at 09:52:45AM -0600, Aaron Griffin wrote:
>>     
>>> On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 9:51 AM, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>       
>>>> On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 9:28 PM, Allan McRae <allan at archlinux.org> wrote:
>>>>         
>>>>> Paul Mattal wrote:
>>>>>           
>>>>>> We've got several bugs relating to choosing a new default cron daemon,
>>>>>> and/or supporting other alternatives.
>>>>>>             
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>
>>>>> I thought we decided on fcron with the small adjustment/script needed to
>>>>> support /etc/cron.d in the last round of discussion about this.  bcron was
>>>>> also popular (+1 from me...) but then we need an anacron replacement too
>>>>> (i.e. fcron).
>>>>>
>>>>> Aaron has repeatedly called for someone to deal with this and we have had a
>>>>> total of zero volunteers to do so...  So if you are going to do this then it
>>>>> would be great. (also have a look at mailman in svn trunk if you have time
>>>>> :P )
>>>>>           
>>>> Allan is correct here. We looked it over and based on the responses
>>>> from all devs at the time, decided that fcron is the best in terms of
>>>> modernizing our cron.
>>>>
>>>> If anyone would like to upgrade our cron to something better, let's go
>>>> with fcron. Please check the mail archives and bug reports for all the
>>>> discussion about alternative crons and why fcron was decided. I don't
>>>> recall all the reasons, but I know they are all there.
>>>>         
>>> Though, I must admit, I did not see this email until after I replied.
>>> yacron was not evaluated when we looked into this...
>>>       
>> Hi this is the author of yacron again.
>>
>> I've just heard from Matt Dillon, he says he's happy for me to take over
>> development and maintainership of dcron.
>>
>> So what I'll do is create a release version of yacron, and rename it to
>> dcron 4.0. Of course that doesn't mean Arch has to keep using dcron; you
>> may still decide fcron is better for core. But if you do want to stay
>> with dcron, its development will now continue with the features I had
>> forked as yacron.
>>     
> Hah! This just goes to show you, kids: just do nothing for long enough
> and someone else will solve the problem for you! :)
>
>   
Well that was unexpected. I'll be happy once my /etc/cron.d/ starts
working again.