On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 11:57, Loui Chang <louipc.ist@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. I agree, however, it sounds a bit odd to say that we should replace a simple package with a more complicated one in the hope the more complicated one will screw us over less going forward. We're just as bound to the idiosyncrasies and bugs of fcron as dcron, but with the added complexity of fcron. For such a crucial system package it would seem wise to deal with the devil that's easier to understand (in theory, I don't claim to understand the internals of e. Also, looking over the comments in the bugtracker (https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/18681), it seems this may not even be a dcron issue. I would urge further consideration before making a switch. Cheers, Alex
