Am Fri, 12 Nov 2010 13:10:12 +0900 schrieb Alex Matviychuk <alexmat@xxxxxxxxx>: > 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. I'm not really a cron expert, but fcron is not more complicated than dcron, it's just more feature-rich, more flexible, has more ways to configure, can be configured more precisely in my estimation. But fcron is as easy or hard to configure as dcron. It's fact that the fcron package is bigger than dcron but it has some more configuration files with which e.g. access privileges can be granted and a comprehensive documentation in plain text, HTML and several manpages. But this documentation can be very helpful for people who are not that familiar with cron daemons in general and fcron in particular. There's probably one thing that could be changed in the fcron package to reduce the size. The complete documentation is in English as well as in French. Nothing against France, but the French documentation could probably be removed from the package. All in all fcron looks a bit more mature in my view. Heiko
