On 04/06/2011 04:43 PM, Sander Jansen wrote:
This seems to be a monthly recurring discussion. How about not providing any default, just put all the different cron(s) in extra? I think eventually systemd will provide a cron-like service :) Cheers, Sander
Oh no, every distro needs a default cron -- matters not what it is called, it is fundamental to many server packages that require some type of cron functionality.
It seems that keeping a default cron makes sense. To me, I don't need any of the advanced features, but I do need something to sweep for new addresses, faxes, etc..
From a user standpoint (not that Arch is an entry level distro by any stretch), but nevertheless, the new user working with Arch will be far better served by having a basic cron in place rather than not having one and experiencing dependency questions later in the install and be left scratching his head.
Upstream stability makes sense. If redhat is behind cronie, then that seems like the logical choice. Otherwise, we are bound to repeat this discussion 12 months from now when fcron or dcron has problems that are not being fixed.
-- David C. Rankin, J.D.,P.E.
