On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 09:32:25AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 03:15:41PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 02:36:26PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > > > On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 12:54:10AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > > > > > Are there any seconds to the proposal to create a virtual > > > > package cron-daemon? The rationale is for packages like logratate, > > > > which otherwise would need to depend on cron | anacron | fcron | bcron > > > > | > > > > etc. > > > > Given how anacron works, I think it fails almost all of the requirements > > > below, so should not be eligible to declare this virtual package. fcron's > > > Conflicts / description suggest it may have a similar problem. Is this > > > virtual package still useful in that case? > > > Maybe I am confused but anacron depends on cron, so a system with anacron > > installed should provide all the feature of cron, right ? > > Nope, anacron Recommends: cron.
Ah right... > > A point of reference: as far as popularity-contest is concerned (one of that > > package having a dependency on cron) the only feature required is support > > for > > /etc/cron.daily. So a case could be made for a cron-daemon virtual package > > with a much smaller interface. > > Well, I don't think I would call that virtual package "cron-daemon" then. > "cron-daily"? I agree. A survey of package depending on cron is in order. Cheers, -- Bill. <ballo...@debian.org> Imagine a large red swirl here. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
