On fre, 2012-03-30 at 13:24 +0200, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote: > The idea of anacron is to more or less "guarantee" that cron jobs are run > on hosts that are not always up. > This can also include security relevant stuff, like running rkhunter, > downloading the latest virus signatures, etc..
I don't entirely agree. Anacron isn't guaranteeing anything, it just tries to do a better job than cron. If a package has a regular job to execute with security or other correctness implications, then using cron is wrong in the first place. > While it's nice to be able to control that it does not run on battery, the > secure default should be to run always. Especially people who rarely > (or never) use the system on power may otherwise run into the > situation that their cron jobs are not executed (often enough). I understand those concerns, but this is a long-standing behavior of the anacron package, so I'm not inclined to change it on a whim. This needs more thought. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
