Quoth Brad,
> Have you made sure the name fits the requirements of run-parts? man
> run-parts for the info. In particular, dots in the filename aren't
> allowed. You can test if run-parts will run it with "run-parts --test
> /etc/cron.daily"
Many thanks to Brad, John, and Jonathon, who all sugges
On Thu, Mar 02, 2000 at 10:25:42PM +1100, Damon Muller wrote
> Quoth kmself@ix.netcom.com,
> > 'at' is a very useful one-time scheduler. I use it frequently as an
> > alternative to backgrounding stuff, say:
>
> When my clock-radio broke recently, I started using at as an alarm
> clock, setting
On Thu, Mar 02, 2000 at 10:25:42PM +1100, Damon Muller wrote:
>
> I also have a problem on a slink system with a (at least one) cron.daily
> job not running. It's a logcheck script, and runs fine when strated from
> a shell prompt. There is no evidence anywhere what is going on - nothing
> in the
Quoth kmself@ix.netcom.com,
> 'at' is a very useful one-time scheduler. I use it frequently as an
> alternative to backgrounding stuff, say:
When my clock-radio broke recently, I started using at as an alarm
clock, setting it to play MP3s for me in the morning to wake me up (my
schedule isn't re
.com wrote:
> >
> > > Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 10:33:01 -0800
> > > From: kmself@ix.netcom.com
> > > To: debian-user
> > > Subject: cron.daily isn't
> > >
> > > I seem to have a problem with my anacron. In particular, cron.daily
> > >
Ben Collins wrote:
> Correct. "at" is an addition to cron, that makes sure that cron jobs get
> run regardless of whether the machine was off during the time it was
> supposed to excute the given job. If your box is up 24/7, all you need is
> cron.
Er, I think you meant "anacron", not "at". At doe
On Tue, 29 Feb 2000, Ben Collins wrote:
> Correct. "at" is an addition to cron, that makes sure that cron jobs
> get run regardless of whether the machine was off during the time it
> was supposed to excute the given job. If your box is up 24/7, all you
> need is cron.
You're overlooking at's abi
On Tue, Feb 29, 2000 at 03:53:14PM -0800, aphro wrote:
> On 29 Feb 2000, Michael A. Miller wrote:
>
> mmille >> "Ben" == Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> mmille >
> mmille >> If your system is up 24/7, I suggest removing at. It is
> mmille >> only meant for machines that are u
On 29 Feb 2000, Michael A. Miller wrote:
mmille >> "Ben" == Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
mmille >
mmille >> If your system is up 24/7, I suggest removing at. It is
mmille >> only meant for machines that are up "sometimes, like dual
mmille >> boot setups, desktops that ge
> "Ben" == Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If your system is up 24/7, I suggest removing at. It is
> only meant for machines that are up "sometimes, like dual
> boot setups, desktops that get shutdown at night, etc...
For machines that are not up 24/7, what replaces at?
do it. This is
> on frozen.
>
> Ernest Johanson
> Web Systems Administrator
> Fuller Theological Seminary
>
>
> On Tue, 29 Feb 2000 kmself@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
> > Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 10:33:01 -0800
> > From: kmself@ix.netcom.com
> > To: debian-user
l Seminary
On Tue, 29 Feb 2000 kmself@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 10:33:01 -0800
> From: kmself@ix.netcom.com
> To: debian-user
> Subject: cron.daily isn't
>
> I seem to have a problem with my anacron. In particular, cron.daily
> scripts don'
I seem to have a problem with my anacron. In particular, cron.daily
scripts don't appear to run when advertised, or more troubling, at all.
Both cron and at are doing fine.
Anyone else had similar experiences? Managing local news is getting to
be a real PITA.
--
Karsten M. Self (kmself@ix.net
13 matches
Mail list logo
