On Mon, 2012-04-09 at 22:36 +0300, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > I don't entirely agree. Anacron isn't guaranteeing anything, it just > tries to do a better job than cron. Well there is no hard guarantees but at least that's the idea behind.
> If a package has a regular job to > execute with security or other correctness implications, then using cron > is wrong in the first place. Well you're right, but the reality is still that people do this. clamav is just one example where the security relevance get's obvious. > 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. But then I don't see why you change the "long-standing behaviour" that it always runs. Especially when it's quite obvious that it can easily happen that some people will more or less always work on battery and recharge when powered off. Also I think using a default that is at least more safe is the better way. When you provide a debconf question you'll even hit the end-users an can ask them what they want and notice the possible (security) implications. Cheers, Chris.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
