On 08.04.2011 00:15, Kaiting Chen wrote: > On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 6:32 AM, Heiko Baums <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> Why do you need vixie cron syntax? Can't you migrate once to a new >> syntax? Btw., most of fcron's syntax is the same as the syntax of every >> cron daemon. You can easily take your previous crontabs. You probably >> have only to do some changes which could most likely be done by sed. >> >> In first place you need stability, reliability and useful features. And >> this is given by fcron. And don't tell me anything about compatibility. >> I would consider this argument if fcron was a new cron daemon and if >> it was totally incompatible. >> >> Fcron is known since years and it's known to be stable and reliable, >> while cronie seems to be pretty new. There are absolutely no >> informations about cronie's features, no documentations, no feature >> comparisons to other cron daemons, etc. on upstream's website. And it's >> still in AUR and has only 3 votes there. >> > The thing is that cronie is forked from vixie-cron which is much older than > fcron. And I would venture to say that vixie-cron or some derivative is the > default crond for the vast majority of distributions out there. --Kaiting. > cronie also appears to be the nicest migration choice for users who are not used to fcron. It seems to support anachron features, cron.d, daily/weekly/etc, is able to actually keep time and works just like expected whereas fcron has fcrontab with a slightly different syntax. We could actually make cronie replace dcron. fcron would be nice but it is not a drop in like cronie. What do you say? If you agree, I shall make (or somebody who steps up) a plan to the replacement and that's that. -- Sven-Hendrik
