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 > probably has the highest assurance for upstream development because it is > backed by redhat. > But I think that having a cron daemon as default that has issues executing > jobs on time and as they are defined is highly questionable. Before the current maintainer took over dcron, we had that same discussion. Aaron even contacted the fcron maintainer (he posted the reply to arch-general or arch-dev-public, if anyone could find the link in the archives, please post it). The author responded that he considered fcron feature-complete, so didn't develop it anymore. However, he would fix bugs when they are reported, and I think there are no known bugs right now. 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. As for your conditions: 1) It is very small software, 1.2MB installed, and it has lots of features. It is by no means minimal though. 2) I commented on that above. 3) dcron has @daily, @hourly and so on. In fcron, you can use standard crontab entries and add &bootrun to the beginning of the line to repeat "missed" cronjobs. I don't know cronie, so maybe you can elaborate more.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
