On Mon, Jan 04, 2010 at 09:52:45AM -0600, Aaron Griffin wrote: > On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 9:51 AM, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 9:28 PM, Allan McRae <allan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> Paul Mattal wrote: > >>> > >>> We've got several bugs relating to choosing a new default cron daemon, > >>> and/or supporting other alternatives. > >> > >> <snip> > >> > >> I thought we decided on fcron with the small adjustment/script needed to > >> support /etc/cron.d in the last round of discussion about this. bcron was > >> also popular (+1 from me...) but then we need an anacron replacement too > >> (i.e. fcron). > >> > >> Aaron has repeatedly called for someone to deal with this and we have had a > >> total of zero volunteers to do so... So if you are going to do this then it > >> would be great. (also have a look at mailman in svn trunk if you have time > >> :P ) > > > > Allan is correct here. We looked it over and based on the responses > > from all devs at the time, decided that fcron is the best in terms of > > modernizing our cron. > > > > If anyone would like to upgrade our cron to something better, let's go > > with fcron. Please check the mail archives and bug reports for all the > > discussion about alternative crons and why fcron was decided. I don't > > recall all the reasons, but I know they are all there. > > Though, I must admit, I did not see this email until after I replied. > yacron was not evaluated when we looked into this... Hi this is the author of yacron again. I've just heard from Matt Dillon, he says he's happy for me to take over development and maintainership of dcron. So what I'll do is create a release version of yacron, and rename it to dcron 4.0. Of course that doesn't mean Arch has to keep using dcron; you may still decide fcron is better for core. But if you do want to stay with dcron, its development will now continue with the features I had forked as yacron. -- Jim Pryor profjim@xxxxxxxxxxxx
