On Wednesday, April 06, 2011 15:27:27 Thomas Bächler wrote: > 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. Losing /etc/cron.d support is a bit of a dealbreaker for me. I think that's a rather huge feature to leave out of a crond.
