On 09-Jan-1998 17:00:04, Martin Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Jan 09, 1998 at 04:30:43PM +0100, Remco Blaakmeer wrote: > > > The update-cron script could be very simple, like: > > > > #!/bin/sh > > cat <<EOF > /etc/crontab.tmp > > # DO NOT EDIT THIS FILE. It will be overwritten by the update-cron script. > > # Instead, edit the appropriate file in /etc/cron.d and re-run update-cron . > > # > > EOF > > cat /etc/cron.d/* >> /etc/crontab.tmp > > mv /etc/crontab.tmp /etc/crontab > > That's far too easy. :)
Yes, that's far too easy, not to mention guaranteed to break existing systems. > > > Advantage: cron doesn't need to be modified > > Disadvantage: Users adding cronjobs might see their jobs removed. > But as there is a note at the beginning this should be acceptable. Totally unacceptable. > > I think there should be no modifications to cron that make Debian > > incompatible with other unixes, if they can be avoided. > > Seconded. Why is it bad to have cron read files directly from cron.d, and acceptable to have it read a crontab that's built from files in cron.d. In the first case, if I mod crontab, it doesn't get overwritten, and I have to go to cron.d to modify some things. In the second, if I mod crontab, it *does* get overwritten, and I have to cron.d to modify things. What's the difference, except that I'm more likely to screw stuff up in the second case? steve -- Steve Greenland -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .