On Fri, 12 Mar 1999, Kurt Wall wrote: > > configuration file. This file uses the same syntax as /etc/crontab and > > is processed by cron automatically. (Note, that scripts in the > > /etc/cron.d directory are not handled by anacron. Thus, you should > > only use this directory for jobs which may be skipped if the system is > > not running.) > > Why not just put the /etc/cron.daily|weekly|monthly tables into > /etc/cron.d, too? What does this buy the spec? Or the user, for that > matter? Drop it all into cron.d and you look one place and one place > only. It seems simpler.
No, it is not simpler. It is one thing to drop a 10k shell script in /etc/cron.daily just as a shell script and not worry about crontab format, and is another thing to make that shell script fit under /etc/crontab syntax. And any sort of hack it is just plain ugly. The /etc/cron.d is intended for simple one line commands, while /etc/cron.daily can possibly include shell scripts that are configurable by the user. > > - do we require anacron in the standard base system? > > No. What is the rationale? Vixie cron works just fine, except, perhaps > that it assumes a box is up 24x7. If a box isn't up 24x7, why is it so > critical to specify anacron? Yeah, right. tell that to a laptop user and see what kind of feedback you get from him. Anacron is so much nicer and requires virtually no effort for integration, while providing many advantages. > Leading with my chin, I ask "Have emerged as de-facto Linux standards"? > for whom? News to me. It's been around for a long time and believe it or not, distribution maintainers do think of it as a de facto standard. Cristian -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Cristian Gafton -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Red Hat Software, Inc. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ UNIX is user friendly. It's just selective about who its friends are.
