On Thu 21 Apr 2011 10:46 +0200, Lukas Fleischer wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 02:32:42AM -0400, Kaiting Chen wrote:
> > So what's the status here? I pulled cronie into [community-testing]
> > a couple of days ago and will probably merge it into [community]
> > soon. So that's the one I vote.
> >
Dimitrios Apostolou [2011.04.22 0126 +0300]:
> On Thu, 21 Apr 2011, Grigorios Bouzakis wrote:
> >Because of these:
> >https://bugs.archlinux.org/index.php?string=dcron&project=1
> >Mostly https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/18681
>
> The "run many times per day" bug hasn't bitten me since months ago.
Am Thu, 21 Apr 2011 22:33:57 +0300
schrieb Ionut Biru :
> i think you are not understanding the process.
>
> if cronie is moved in core, it won't have a replaces=dcron. Only new
> installations will get cronie by default instead of dcron.
I understand this exactly. But I still have the feeling
On 22/04/11 10:18, Grigorios Bouzakis wrote:
An unsupported package installed by the official installation media.
Like i said it doesnt make sense to me. But you got a plan. So just go
with it. And hopefully there'll never be another debate about cron
around here in the future.
There is actual
Evangelos Foutras wrote:
> On 22/04/11 00:30, Grigorios Bouzakis wrote:
>> Ionut Biru wrote:
>>> if this will happen, the steps are very simple
>>> 1) remove dcron from core
>>> 2) add cronie/fcron to core in base group and depending on the package,
>>> it might have conflicts=dcron but not replac
Kaiting Chen wrote:
> On Apr 21, 2011, at 17:30, Grigorios Bouzakis wrote:
>
>> Ionut Biru wrote:
>>> On 04/22/2011 12:11 AM, Grigorios Bouzakis wrote:
Ionut Biru wrote:
> On 04/21/2011 02:18 PM, Heiko Baums wrote:
>> Am Thu, 21 Apr 2011 08:48:04 +0200
>> schrieb Sven-Hendrik Haas
On 22/04/11 00:30, Grigorios Bouzakis wrote:
> Ionut Biru wrote:
>> if this will happen, the steps are very simple
>> 1) remove dcron from core
>> 2) add cronie/fcron to core in base group and depending on the package,
>> it might have conflicts=dcron but not replaces
>>
>> this way the existent s
On Apr 21, 2011, at 17:30, Grigorios Bouzakis wrote:
> Ionut Biru wrote:
>> On 04/22/2011 12:11 AM, Grigorios Bouzakis wrote:
>>> Ionut Biru wrote:
On 04/21/2011 02:18 PM, Heiko Baums wrote:
> Am Thu, 21 Apr 2011 08:48:04 +0200
> schrieb Sven-Hendrik Haase:
>
>> I second thi
On Thu, 21 Apr 2011, Grigorios Bouzakis wrote:
Because of these:
https://bugs.archlinux.org/index.php?string=dcron&project=1
Mostly https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/18681
The "run many times per day" bug hasn't bitten me since months ago. And I
used to see it really often. Maybe it is fixed?
Ionut Biru wrote:
> On 04/22/2011 12:11 AM, Grigorios Bouzakis wrote:
>> Ionut Biru wrote:
>>> On 04/21/2011 02:18 PM, Heiko Baums wrote:
Am Thu, 21 Apr 2011 08:48:04 +0200
schrieb Sven-Hendrik Haase:
> I second this suggestion. cronie upstream isn't dead at all. cronie
> is
On 04/22/2011 12:11 AM, Grigorios Bouzakis wrote:
Ionut Biru wrote:
On 04/21/2011 02:18 PM, Heiko Baums wrote:
Am Thu, 21 Apr 2011 08:48:04 +0200
schrieb Sven-Hendrik Haase:
I second this suggestion. cronie upstream isn't dead at all. cronie
is a drop-in unlike fcron which was favored earlier
Ionut Biru wrote:
> On 04/21/2011 02:18 PM, Heiko Baums wrote:
>> Am Thu, 21 Apr 2011 08:48:04 +0200
>> schrieb Sven-Hendrik Haase:
>>
>>> I second this suggestion. cronie upstream isn't dead at all. cronie
>>> is a drop-in unlike fcron which was favored earlier.
>>
>> Is it such a drop-in like the
On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 9:33 PM, Ionut Biru wrote:
> Only new installations will get cronie by default instead of dcron.
+1 from me for replacing dcron like this, but with fcron, not cronie.
On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 2:33 PM, Ionut Biru wrote:
> On 04/21/2011 02:18 PM, Heiko Baums wrote:
>>
>> Am Thu, 21 Apr 2011 08:48:04 +0200
>> schrieb Sven-Hendrik Haase:
>>
>>> I second this suggestion. cronie upstream isn't dead at all. cronie
>>> is a drop-in unlike fcron which was favored earlier
On 04/21/2011 02:18 PM, Heiko Baums wrote:
Am Thu, 21 Apr 2011 08:48:04 +0200
schrieb Sven-Hendrik Haase:
I second this suggestion. cronie upstream isn't dead at all. cronie
is a drop-in unlike fcron which was favored earlier.
Is it such a drop-in like the new dcron when dcron upstream was ad
> I'm still trying to understand WHY we suddenly feel the need to replace dcron
> when its not even broken.
Actually dcron is broken quite badly. Sometimes the cron job is run
several times in a row, sometimes it's not run at all. The dcron
developer said he will fix it soon, but it was about a ye
Yaro Kasear wrote:
>
> I'm still trying to understand WHY we suddenly feel the need to replace dcron
> when its not even broken. Replacing packages with other packages purely
> because they're new is something Fedora and Ubuntu would do, I though Arch
> wasn't about arbitrarily replacing its def
On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 9:37 AM, Yaro Kasear wrote:
> On Thursday, April 21, 2011 01:48:04 Sven-Hendrik Haase wrote:
> > On 21.04.2011 08:32, Kaiting Chen wrote:
> > > On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 11:32 AM, David C. Rankin <
> > >
> > > drankina...@suddenlinkmail.com> wrote:
> > >> On 04/06/2011 10:34
On Thursday, April 21, 2011 01:48:04 Sven-Hendrik Haase wrote:
> On 21.04.2011 08:32, Kaiting Chen wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 11:32 AM, David C. Rankin <
> >
> > drankina...@suddenlinkmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 04/06/2011 10:34 PM, Heiko Baums wrote:
> >>> Upstream stability makes sense. If r
On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 13:27:07 +0200, Heiko Baums wrote:
Am Thu, 21 Apr 2011 13:18:33 +0200 schrieb Heiko Baums
:
And, btw., what's about the licenses? fcron is GPL, cronie has a
custom
license called ISC. I don't know this ISC but this should be checked
before.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISC
Am Thu, 21 Apr 2011 13:18:33 +0200
schrieb Heiko Baums :
> I can be wrong, but I really have the feeling that switching the
> default cron daemon to cronie will be a big mistake.
And, btw., what's about the licenses? fcron is GPL, cronie has a custom
license called ISC. I don't know this ISC but
Am Thu, 21 Apr 2011 08:48:04 +0200
schrieb Sven-Hendrik Haase :
> I second this suggestion. cronie upstream isn't dead at all. cronie
> is a drop-in unlike fcron which was favored earlier.
Is it such a drop-in like the new dcron when dcron upstream was adopted
by this Arch user?
Better look at t
On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 02:32:42AM -0400, Kaiting Chen wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 11:32 AM, David C. Rankin <
> drankina...@suddenlinkmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 04/06/2011 10:34 PM, Heiko Baums wrote:
> >
> >> Upstream stability makes sense. If redhat is behind cronie, then that
> >>> > seems
Kaiting Chen wrote:
>
> So what's the status here? I pulled cronie into [community-testing] a couple
> of days ago and will probably merge it into [community] soon. So that's the
> one I vote.
>
> But regardless of which one we choose in my opinion the sooner we get rid of
> dcron the better. --Kai
On 21.04.2011 08:32, Kaiting Chen wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 11:32 AM, David C. Rankin <
> drankina...@suddenlinkmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 04/06/2011 10:34 PM, Heiko Baums wrote:
>>
>>> Upstream stability makes sense. If redhat is behind cronie, then that
> seems like the logical choice.
>
On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 11:32 AM, David C. Rankin <
drankina...@suddenlinkmail.com> wrote:
> On 04/06/2011 10:34 PM, Heiko Baums wrote:
>
>> Upstream stability makes sense. If redhat is behind cronie, then that
>>> > seems like the logical choice.
>>>
>> Why is this logical? Is it the developer wh
On 04/06/2011 10:34 PM, Heiko Baums wrote:
Upstream stability makes sense. If redhat is behind cronie, then that
> seems like the logical choice.
Why is this logical? Is it the developer what makes a software good or
is it the features and the stability? If Redhat's cronie has less
features tha
On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 5:42 AM, Allan McRae wrote:
> On 08/04/11 07:16, Heiko Baums wrote:
>
>> But let's try to get objective again.
>>
>
> No need. A new cron for [core] has to pass only one condition... :)
>
> 1) a developer is willing to maintain it.
>
> So far that seems to be Thomas and
On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 1:33 AM, Dieter Plaetinck wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Apr 2011 23:16:46 +0200
> Heiko Baums wrote:
>
> > On the other hand this issue could be solved in a different way
> > without any further discussions. There's a need for installing one
> > cron daemon, but no need for a default
On 08/04/11 07:16, Heiko Baums wrote:
But let's try to get objective again.
No need. A new cron for [core] has to pass only one condition... :)
1) a developer is willing to maintain it.
So far that seems to be Thomas and fcron.
Anyway, I recall mention in our bug report of a patch being
On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 6:46 AM, Dieter Plaetinck wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Apr 2011 06:45:29 -0400
> Kaiting Chen wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 3:33 AM, Dieter Plaetinck
> > wrote:
> >
> > > > On the other hand this issue could be solved in a different way
> > > > without any further discussions.
On Fri, 8 Apr 2011 06:45:29 -0400
Kaiting Chen wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 3:33 AM, Dieter Plaetinck
> wrote:
>
> > > On the other hand this issue could be solved in a different way
> > > without any further discussions. There's a need for installing one
> > > cron daemon, but no need for a
On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 3:33 AM, Dieter Plaetinck wrote:
> > On the other hand this issue could be solved in a different way
> > without any further discussions. There's a need for installing one
> > cron daemon, but no need for a default cron daemon. It's pretty the
> > same issue as with the boot
On Thu, 7 Apr 2011 23:16:46 +0200
Heiko Baums wrote:
> On the other hand this issue could be solved in a different way
> without any further discussions. There's a need for installing one
> cron daemon, but no need for a default cron daemon. It's pretty the
> same issue as with the bootloaders. T
On Fri, 08 Apr 2011 00:34:42 +0200 Sven-Hendrik Haase wrote:
> cronie also appears to be the nicest migration choice for users who
> are not used to fcron. It seems to support anachron features, cron.d,
> daily/weekly/etc, is able to actually keep time and works just like
> expected whereas fcron
Kaiting Chen wrote:
>
> The thing is that cronie is forked from vixie-cron which is much older than
> fcron. And I would venture to say that vixie-cron or some derivative is the
> default crond for the vast majority of distributions out there. --Kaiting.
>
Why do you have --disable-anacron in the
> cronie also appears to be the nicest migration choice for users who are
> not used to fcron. It seems to support anachron features, cron.d,
> daily/weekly/etc, is able to actually keep time and works just like
> expected whereas fcron has fcrontab with a slightly different syntax. We
> could actu
On 08.04.2011 00:15, Kaiting Chen wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 6:32 AM, Heiko Baums wrote:
>
>> Why do you need vixie cron syntax? Can't you migrate once to a new
>> syntax? Btw., most of fcron's syntax is the same as the syntax of every
>> cron daemon. You can easily take your previous crontab
On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 6:32 AM, Heiko Baums wrote:
> Why do you need vixie cron syntax? Can't you migrate once to a new
> syntax? Btw., most of fcron's syntax is the same as the syntax of every
> cron daemon. You can easily take your previous crontabs. You probably
> have only to do some changes
Am Thu, 7 Apr 2011 23:16:46 +0200
schrieb Heiko Baums :
> But let's try to get objective again.
Btw., generally it doesn't really matter that much which cron daemon is
installed by AIF. Another cron daemon can easily be installed
afterwards. A cron daemon is not such an important and sensible
sof
Am Thu, 7 Apr 2011 21:53:58 +0200
schrieb Marek Otahal :
> Sorry to sound rude, but Heiko, it's you who is pushing fcron so
> unhealthily heavily. I wouldn't have no opinion on the two crons but
> after reading the discussion I'd stick to cronie. Just my 2c.
Well, on the one hand yes, on the oth
On Thursday 07 of April 2011 12:32:50 Heiko Baums wrote:
> Am Wed, 6 Apr 2011 22:03:23 -0600
> > I spent quite some time as a trainer for Red Hat and taught classes on
> > SELinux.
>
> Is this why you want to push cronie so heavily?
>
> Heiko
Sorry to sound rude, but Heiko, it's you who is pushin
On Wednesday, April 06, 2011 15:27:27 Thomas Bächler wrote:
> Am 05.04.2011 09:19, schrieb Thomas S Hatch:
> > I can think of three considerations for a cron daemon:
> > 1 . Minimal - its a cron daemon, it does not need to be complex
> > 2. Active development
> > 3. Anacron functionality
> >
> > A
On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 2:16 AM, Thomas Bächler wrote:
> Am 07.04.2011 04:30, schrieb Thomas S Hatch:
> > Right, both are viable choices, btw I will be migrating my datacenters
> away
> > from dcron in the near future and doing a series of tests on cronie and
> > fcron, I will post my findings to
Am Wed, 6 Apr 2011 20:30:46 -0600
schrieb Thomas S Hatch :
> Right, both are viable choices, btw I will be migrating my
> datacenters away from dcron in the near future and doing a series of
> tests on cronie and fcron, I will post my findings to the list.
Data center? So the systems are running
Am Wed, 6 Apr 2011 22:03:23 -0600
schrieb Thomas S Hatch :
> I would say that we should consider compatibility with vixie cron
> syntax - this is and has been the expected syntax for the default
> cron daemon for a LONG time and avoids hindering Arch Linux adoption.
Why do you need vixie cron syn
Am 07.04.2011 04:30, schrieb Thomas S Hatch:
> Right, both are viable choices, btw I will be migrating my datacenters away
> from dcron in the near future and doing a series of tests on cronie and
> fcron, I will post my findings to the list.
I think that will be more valuable than any continuatio
On Thu, 7 Apr 2011 00:29:36 +0200 Heiko Baums wrote:
> > cronie extends the original vixie cron package so the syntax, core
> > feature set, etc are stable
> > cronie implements advanced security hooks as well and can integrate
> > with SELINUX (I am saving the "include SELINUX support in base for
On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 9:24 PM, David C. Rankin <
drankina...@suddenlinkmail.com> wrote:
> On 04/06/2011 04:43 PM, Sander Jansen wrote:
>
>> This seems to be a monthly recurring discussion. How about not
>> providing any default, just put all the different cron(s) in extra?
>> I think eventually s
On 07/04/11, Heiko Baums wrote:
| And this doesn't work in dcron, at least not as reliable as
| the equivalent &bootrun of fcron. And that's one point why fcron is
| much better than dcron. Are you sure that this is working in cronie? If
| yes, are you sure that this works in cronie as reliable as
Am Wed, 06 Apr 2011 22:24:45 -0500
schrieb "David C. Rankin" :
> Upstream stability makes sense. If redhat is behind cronie, then that
> seems like the logical choice.
Why is this logical? Is it the developer what makes a software good or
is it the features and the stability? If Redhat's cronie h
Am Thu, 7 Apr 2011 13:07:17 +1000
schrieb Simon Perry :
> On 06/04/11, Thomas S Hatch wrote:
>
> | Right, both are viable choices, btw I will be migrating my
> datacenters away | from dcron in the near future and doing a series
> of tests on cronie and | fcron, I will post my findings to the list
On 04/06/2011 04:43 PM, Sander Jansen wrote:
This seems to be a monthly recurring discussion. How about not
providing any default, just put all the different cron(s) in extra?
I think eventually systemd will provide a cron-like service :)
Cheers,
Sander
Oh no, every distro needs a default cro
On 06/04/11, Thomas S Hatch wrote:
| Right, both are viable choices, btw I will be migrating my datacenters away
| from dcron in the near future and doing a series of tests on cronie and
| fcron, I will post my findings to the list.
Here's one reason I stopped using fcron and went to cronie:
| 2
On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 7:34 PM, Kaiting Chen wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 7:13 PM, Thomas S Hatch wrote:
>
> > cronie has anacron features and I think is a good option.
> >
>
> Unfortunately cronie isn't even in [community] yet. I've been trying to get
> it there for a while. Also, in what wa
On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 7:13 PM, Thomas S Hatch wrote:
> cronie has anacron features and I think is a good option.
>
Unfortunately cronie isn't even in [community] yet. I've been trying to get
it there for a while. Also, in what way is another crond + anacron inferior
to fcron? --Kaiting.
--
Ki
On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 5:06 PM, Heiko Baums wrote:
> Am Wed, 6 Apr 2011 16:57:58 -0600
> schrieb Thomas S Hatch :
>
> > All I want is a good decision to be made and have a crond that is not
> > buggy. Therefore I think that it is foolish not to present the
> > available options in an accurate lig
Am Wed, 6 Apr 2011 16:57:58 -0600
schrieb Thomas S Hatch :
> All I want is a good decision to be made and have a crond that is not
> buggy. Therefore I think that it is foolish not to present the
> available options in an accurate light.
fcron is absolutely not buggy as far as I can tell. I'm usi
On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 4:29 PM, Heiko Baums wrote:
> Am Wed, 6 Apr 2011 15:30:26 -0600
> schrieb Thomas S Hatch :
>
> > dcron and fcron are not under active development,
>
> fcron is under active development. It's just feature complete and
> therefore not developed anymore, but bugs are still fix
Am Wed, 6 Apr 2011 15:30:26 -0600
schrieb Thomas S Hatch :
> dcron and fcron are not under active development,
fcron is under active development. It's just feature complete and
therefore not developed anymore, but bugs are still fixed if they
occur. So don't mix it up with a "dead" project. I gue
Am Wed, 6 Apr 2011 15:54:00 -0600
schrieb Thomas S Hatch :
> Unfortunately this particular issue is not like the good ol'
> syslog-ng vs rsyslog debate, this one is about the present default
> having bugs that upstream is not fixing.
No, this issue is worse than the syslog-ng vs. rsyslog debate a
On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 3:43 PM, Sander Jansen wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 4:30 PM, Thomas S Hatch wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 2:49 PM, Heiko Baums
> wrote:
> >
> >> Am Wed, 06 Apr 2011 22:27:27 +0200
> >> schrieb Thomas Bächler :
> >>
> >> > That said, fcron lacks /etc/cron.d/ functio
On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 4:30 PM, Thomas S Hatch wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 2:49 PM, Heiko Baums wrote:
>
>> Am Wed, 06 Apr 2011 22:27:27 +0200
>> schrieb Thomas Bächler :
>>
>> > That said, fcron lacks /etc/cron.d/ functionality which was the most
>> > important argument against it. I persona
On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 2:49 PM, Heiko Baums wrote:
> Am Wed, 06 Apr 2011 22:27:27 +0200
> schrieb Thomas Bächler :
>
> > That said, fcron lacks /etc/cron.d/ functionality which was the most
> > important argument against it. I personally don't need that and I like
> > fcron a lot.
>
> Are you sur
Am Wed, 06 Apr 2011 22:27:27 +0200
schrieb Thomas Bächler :
> That said, fcron lacks /etc/cron.d/ functionality which was the most
> important argument against it. I personally don't need that and I like
> fcron a lot.
Are you sure about that? I mean, I didn't need /etc/cron.d, yet. So I
don't kn
Am 05.04.2011 09:19, schrieb Thomas S Hatch:
> I can think of three considerations for a cron daemon:
> 1 . Minimal - its a cron daemon, it does not need to be complex
> 2. Active development
> 3. Anacron functionality
>
> As far as I can see this leaves us with fcron, dcron and cronie. Cronie
> p
Am Wed, 6 Apr 2011 10:24:42 -0600
schrieb Thomas S Hatch :
> The thing to do is contact the package maintainer and present the
> idea, and ask what needs to be done to make the change.
>
> I for one +1 to the move, I like dcron, but when it takes this long
> to fix bugs upstream we need to unfort
On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 10:19 AM, Corey Johns wrote:
> fcron is pretty much the de facto cron of choice for anyone needing a cron
> without special case needs. A nice general cron program.
>
> I do wonder about the bureaucratic processes in place to facillitate such a
> switch, though.
>
The thin
fcron is pretty much the de facto cron of choice for anyone needing a cron
without special case needs. A nice general cron program.
I do wonder about the bureaucratic processes in place to facillitate such a
switch, though.
On Tue, Apr 05, 2011 at 08:41:13AM +0200, Sven-Hendrik Haase wrote:
> packages we know are broken by putting them into the base group. Perhaps
> fcron is a fine choice.
>
> Bug report for reference: https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/18681
It surely would be great for fcron to replace dcron, since b
On Tue, 05 Apr 2011 08:41:13 +0200
Sven-Hendrik Haase wrote:
> We all know the situation with dcron (it can't keep time properly) and
> it still is broken. No fix (or any changes for that matter) have gone
> into its upstream git for over a year now. There have been multiple
> yeah-I'll-take-a-lo
Am Tue, 05 Apr 2011 08:41:13 +0200
schrieb Sven-Hendrik Haase :
> We all know the situation with dcron (it can't keep time properly) and
> it still is broken. No fix (or any changes for that matter) have gone
> into its upstream git for over a year now. There have been multiple
> yeah-I'll-take-a-
I can think of three considerations for a cron daemon:
1 . Minimal - its a cron daemon, it does not need to be complex
2. Active development
3. Anacron functionality
As far as I can see this leaves us with fcron, dcron and cronie. Cronie
probably has the highest assurance for upstream development
We all know the situation with dcron (it can't keep time properly) and
it still is broken. No fix (or any changes for that matter) have gone
into its upstream git for over a year now. There have been multiple
yeah-I'll-take-a-looks from various people as well as its upstream
maintainer and no work
74 matches
Mail list logo
