Am Thu, 21 Apr 2011 21:07:35 -0400
schrieb Kaiting Chen :
> First of all the cronie in [community-testing] is compiled with
> --enable-anacron. It installs not only an /etc/crontab but also an
> /etc/anacrontab. Scripts in '/etc/cron.hourly' are run directly by
> `/usr/sbin/crond` while scripts in
On Thu 21 Apr 2011 10:46 +0200, Lukas Fleischer wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 02:32:42AM -0400, Kaiting Chen wrote:
> > So what's the status here? I pulled cronie into [community-testing]
> > a couple of days ago and will probably merge it into [community]
> > soon. So that's the one I vote.
> >
I've compiled a short document describing exactly what cronie is and is not;
and if it were to be the default what would and would not happen to base,
[core], and the rest of Arch. It is my hope that this will clear up some of
the misunderstanding surrounding the current discussion on arch-general.
Dimitrios Apostolou [2011.04.22 0126 +0300]:
> On Thu, 21 Apr 2011, Grigorios Bouzakis wrote:
> >Because of these:
> >https://bugs.archlinux.org/index.php?string=dcron&project=1
> >Mostly https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/18681
>
> The "run many times per day" bug hasn't bitten me since months ago.
Am Thu, 21 Apr 2011 22:33:57 +0300
schrieb Ionut Biru :
> i think you are not understanding the process.
>
> if cronie is moved in core, it won't have a replaces=dcron. Only new
> installations will get cronie by default instead of dcron.
I understand this exactly. But I still have the feeling
On 22/04/11 10:18, Grigorios Bouzakis wrote:
An unsupported package installed by the official installation media.
Like i said it doesnt make sense to me. But you got a plan. So just go
with it. And hopefully there'll never be another debate about cron
around here in the future.
There is actual
Evangelos Foutras wrote:
> On 22/04/11 00:30, Grigorios Bouzakis wrote:
>> Ionut Biru wrote:
>>> if this will happen, the steps are very simple
>>> 1) remove dcron from core
>>> 2) add cronie/fcron to core in base group and depending on the package,
>>> it might have conflicts=dcron but not replac
Kaiting Chen wrote:
> On Apr 21, 2011, at 17:30, Grigorios Bouzakis wrote:
>
>> Ionut Biru wrote:
>>> On 04/22/2011 12:11 AM, Grigorios Bouzakis wrote:
Ionut Biru wrote:
> On 04/21/2011 02:18 PM, Heiko Baums wrote:
>> Am Thu, 21 Apr 2011 08:48:04 +0200
>> schrieb Sven-Hendrik Haas
On 22/04/11 00:30, Grigorios Bouzakis wrote:
> Ionut Biru wrote:
>> if this will happen, the steps are very simple
>> 1) remove dcron from core
>> 2) add cronie/fcron to core in base group and depending on the package,
>> it might have conflicts=dcron but not replaces
>>
>> this way the existent s
On Apr 21, 2011, at 17:30, Grigorios Bouzakis wrote:
> Ionut Biru wrote:
>> On 04/22/2011 12:11 AM, Grigorios Bouzakis wrote:
>>> Ionut Biru wrote:
On 04/21/2011 02:18 PM, Heiko Baums wrote:
> Am Thu, 21 Apr 2011 08:48:04 +0200
> schrieb Sven-Hendrik Haase:
>
>> I second thi
On Thu, 21 Apr 2011, Grigorios Bouzakis wrote:
Because of these:
https://bugs.archlinux.org/index.php?string=dcron&project=1
Mostly https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/18681
The "run many times per day" bug hasn't bitten me since months ago. And I
used to see it really often. Maybe it is fixed?
Ionut Biru wrote:
> On 04/22/2011 12:11 AM, Grigorios Bouzakis wrote:
>> Ionut Biru wrote:
>>> On 04/21/2011 02:18 PM, Heiko Baums wrote:
Am Thu, 21 Apr 2011 08:48:04 +0200
schrieb Sven-Hendrik Haase:
> I second this suggestion. cronie upstream isn't dead at all. cronie
> is
On 04/22/2011 12:11 AM, Grigorios Bouzakis wrote:
Ionut Biru wrote:
On 04/21/2011 02:18 PM, Heiko Baums wrote:
Am Thu, 21 Apr 2011 08:48:04 +0200
schrieb Sven-Hendrik Haase:
I second this suggestion. cronie upstream isn't dead at all. cronie
is a drop-in unlike fcron which was favored earlier
Ionut Biru wrote:
> On 04/21/2011 02:18 PM, Heiko Baums wrote:
>> Am Thu, 21 Apr 2011 08:48:04 +0200
>> schrieb Sven-Hendrik Haase:
>>
>>> I second this suggestion. cronie upstream isn't dead at all. cronie
>>> is a drop-in unlike fcron which was favored earlier.
>>
>> Is it such a drop-in like the
On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 9:33 PM, Ionut Biru wrote:
> Only new installations will get cronie by default instead of dcron.
+1 from me for replacing dcron like this, but with fcron, not cronie.
On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 2:33 PM, Ionut Biru wrote:
> On 04/21/2011 02:18 PM, Heiko Baums wrote:
>>
>> Am Thu, 21 Apr 2011 08:48:04 +0200
>> schrieb Sven-Hendrik Haase:
>>
>>> I second this suggestion. cronie upstream isn't dead at all. cronie
>>> is a drop-in unlike fcron which was favored earlier
On 04/21/2011 02:18 PM, Heiko Baums wrote:
Am Thu, 21 Apr 2011 08:48:04 +0200
schrieb Sven-Hendrik Haase:
I second this suggestion. cronie upstream isn't dead at all. cronie
is a drop-in unlike fcron which was favored earlier.
Is it such a drop-in like the new dcron when dcron upstream was ad
> I'm still trying to understand WHY we suddenly feel the need to replace dcron
> when its not even broken.
Actually dcron is broken quite badly. Sometimes the cron job is run
several times in a row, sometimes it's not run at all. The dcron
developer said he will fix it soon, but it was about a ye
Yaro Kasear wrote:
>
> I'm still trying to understand WHY we suddenly feel the need to replace dcron
> when its not even broken. Replacing packages with other packages purely
> because they're new is something Fedora and Ubuntu would do, I though Arch
> wasn't about arbitrarily replacing its def
On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 9:37 AM, Yaro Kasear wrote:
> On Thursday, April 21, 2011 01:48:04 Sven-Hendrik Haase wrote:
> > On 21.04.2011 08:32, Kaiting Chen wrote:
> > > On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 11:32 AM, David C. Rankin <
> > >
> > > drankina...@suddenlinkmail.com> wrote:
> > >> On 04/06/2011 10:34
On Thursday, April 21, 2011 01:48:04 Sven-Hendrik Haase wrote:
> On 21.04.2011 08:32, Kaiting Chen wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 11:32 AM, David C. Rankin <
> >
> > drankina...@suddenlinkmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 04/06/2011 10:34 PM, Heiko Baums wrote:
> >>> Upstream stability makes sense. If r
On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 13:27:07 +0200, Heiko Baums wrote:
Am Thu, 21 Apr 2011 13:18:33 +0200 schrieb Heiko Baums
:
And, btw., what's about the licenses? fcron is GPL, cronie has a
custom
license called ISC. I don't know this ISC but this should be checked
before.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISC
Am Thu, 21 Apr 2011 13:18:33 +0200
schrieb Heiko Baums :
> I can be wrong, but I really have the feeling that switching the
> default cron daemon to cronie will be a big mistake.
And, btw., what's about the licenses? fcron is GPL, cronie has a custom
license called ISC. I don't know this ISC but
Am Thu, 21 Apr 2011 08:48:04 +0200
schrieb Sven-Hendrik Haase :
> I second this suggestion. cronie upstream isn't dead at all. cronie
> is a drop-in unlike fcron which was favored earlier.
Is it such a drop-in like the new dcron when dcron upstream was adopted
by this Arch user?
Better look at t
On Apr 21, 2011 6:17 AM, "Tom Gundersen" wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 7:16 AM, Andreas Radke wrote:
> > Am Mon, 18 Apr 2011 07:29:20 +0200
> > schrieb Tobias Powalowski :
> >> yes, i think this is because i enabled printk_time option.
> >
> > Once again somebody request something and we don
Version 0.6.10 was busted, this time everything should be fine (finally).
Thomas Bächler (2):
Rewrite parse_cmdline (again)
Release version 0.6.11
There is a problem: The new filesystem package was moved to core and
creates /run, but /run is not usable as it is not a world-writable
tm
On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 02:32:42AM -0400, Kaiting Chen wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 11:32 AM, David C. Rankin <
> drankina...@suddenlinkmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 04/06/2011 10:34 PM, Heiko Baums wrote:
> >
> >> Upstream stability makes sense. If redhat is behind cronie, then that
> >>> > seems
Kaiting Chen wrote:
>
> So what's the status here? I pulled cronie into [community-testing] a couple
> of days ago and will probably merge it into [community] soon. So that's the
> one I vote.
>
> But regardless of which one we choose in my opinion the sooner we get rid of
> dcron the better. --Kai
28 matches
Mail list logo
