On Fri 12 Nov 2010 10:26 +0900, Alex Matviychuk wrote: > Thanks to this thread I decided to look at both dcron and fcron. First > google result for dcron led me to this: > > This is from a Linux From Scratch readme here: > http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/hints/downloads/files/dcron.txt Nice. The guy who wrote that article is an Archer and former TU. It's also from 7 years ago. I'm sure a good deal has changed since. > From my naive point of view, it seems like dcron is more in line with > the Arch Way. > > In response to the initial concern about a bug in dcron, don't we have > anyone in our userbase that could take a look at the dcron code? As > far as updates, I wouldn't expect a basic mature package to be updated > more than once or twice a year. Update frequency alone says nothing > about the quality of the code. > My vote would be to focus efforts on fixing the bug and to keep Arch > as small and lightweight as possible at its base. One of the best > parts of Arch for me is that it starts out minimalistic and you can > extend it to make it fit your needs. Trying to make our favorite > packages defaults instead of minimal, stable, small packages, is a > mistake imho. The only problem is finding someone who can do the work to maintain dcron. It's pretty damning to have a scheduler that can't schedule properly installed by default - that's what people seem to be concerned about mostly. I'd like to keep the simpler package too, but if it ain't working chuck it.
