> Not sure I understand the problem. ‘mcron-jobs’ wouldn’t collide with > anything else AFAICS, and it would be clearer than just ‘jobs’ no?
What I mean is that mcron-jobs assumes that the mcron-service is used. Calling it something general like jobs or cron-jobs wouldn't require renaming, if someone wants to use a different cron implementation. For example in an embedded system someone might prefer to use the busybox/toybox cron implementation. I'm not sure what other job time scheduling solutions exist. But a job is something that needs to run at specific times and has a bounded run time. I don't know how cron specific this feature is, or if the name of the job scheduler it's relevant as part of an operating-system declaration.
