On Wed, 14 Oct 2009, Russ Allbery wrote:
Do both of our proposed cron daemons support that same syntax? (Does
anyone here use bcron to comment on that?)
bcron supports the */n syntax, but not @reboot and the other @*. See
Raphael Hertzog wrote:
On Wed, 14 Oct 2009, Russ Allbery wrote:
Do both of our proposed cron daemons support that same syntax? (Does
anyone here use bcron to comment on that?)
bcron supports the */n syntax, but not @reboot and the other @*. See
On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 09:18:45AM +0200, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
Raphael Hertzog wrote:
On Wed, 14 Oct 2009, Russ Allbery wrote:
Do both of our proposed cron daemons support that same syntax? (Does
anyone here use bcron to comment on that?)
bcron supports the */n syntax, but not @reboot
Bill Allombert bill.allomb...@math.u-bordeaux1.fr writes:
On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 09:18:45AM +0200, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
IMO I really think that packages should use the init.d script instead
of rely @reboot, allowing @reboot only for sysadmin: better to have a
unique method for
Gerrit Pape p...@smarden.org writes:
On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 01:43:57PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
I suspect that we need to document that packages may rely on @reboot,
@yearly, @monthly, @weekly, @daily, and @hourly, and also on the */2
syntax. We also need to document that, contrary POSIX,
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 04:45:26PM -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
On Fri, Sep 11 2009, 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 |
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
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
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
Hi,
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.
The requirements for providing cron-daemon are:
[ POSIX ]
- Has to
Manoj Srivastava sriva...@golden-gryphon.com writes:
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.
The requirements
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
Package: debian-policy
Priority: wishlist
Hi all,
It was suggested to me (#349170) that we should use a virtual package
'cron-service' to make it easier to people to switch between different cron
implementations. Currently in Debian there are three of them available:
vixie-cron, which is our
14 matches
Mail list logo
