Am Wed, 6 Apr 2011 16:57:58 -0600 schrieb Thomas S Hatch <thatch45@xxxxxxxxx>: > All I want is a good decision to be made and have a crond that is not > buggy. Therefore I think that it is foolish not to present the > available options in an accurate light. fcron is absolutely not buggy as far as I can tell. I'm using it since years now and it always did what it should do. I tried dcron when it was adopted by this Arch user, but switched back to fcron pretty soon, because dcron was indeed not reliable. cronie is no option for me because of the lack of integrated anacron features. But all those arguments including not having a buggy crond have been discussed many times before by a lot of users, TUs and devs. But then dcron's new developer said that he wanted to fix those bugs and so dcron was kept as the default. This was the only reason as far as I recall. I understand Sven-Hendriks e-mail just as a reminder of this fact and that dcron's upstream still hasn't fixed the issue. I don't think that Sven-Hendrik wanted to start a new discussion about that even if it started again nevertheless. Heiko
