Damian Wiest <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Oct 02, 2006 at 07:54:05PM -0400, Adam wrote: > > Damian Wiest <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Suppose your cron jobs don't emit output, which any good job shouldn't do. > > > > Huh? If you want a task to run on a schedule, and then mail you the > > results, > > then cron is exactly what you want. Any "good job" does what its author > > wants it to. If they want it to emit output, then having it be silent for > > no reason does not make it a "good job". > > > > Adam > > The way I structure my jobs, no output is _ever_ mailed by the cron > daemon. Instead, the job itself traps output and sends an appropriate > email message, with an appropriate subject to the appropriate user.
Good for you. But "what Damian likes to do" is not the definition of "good". Like I said, if someone wants output mailed from cron, then making the job silent just because Damian thinks that's "good" is dumb. Adam
