On 21.04.2011 08:32, Kaiting Chen wrote: > On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 11:32 AM, David C. Rankin < > drankinatty@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> On 04/06/2011 10:34 PM, Heiko Baums wrote: >> >>> Upstream stability makes sense. If redhat is behind cronie, then that >>>>> seems like the logical choice. >>> Why is this logical? Is it the developer what makes a software good or >>> is it the features and the stability? If Redhat's cronie has less >>> features than fcron then fcron is the logical choice, of course. >>> >> You are correct. The long term stability was just my thought. Like I said >> earlier in my message -- It doesn't matter to me which cron we have -- as >> long as we have one that works :) I have no say in the matter, so I will, >> of course, defer to whatever decision you guys reach. I just want to make >> sure we have a cron by default :) > > So what's the status here? I pulled cronie into [community-testing] a couple > of days ago and will probably merge it into [community] soon. So that's the > one I vote. > > But regardless of which one we choose in my opinion the sooner we get rid of > dcron the better. --Kaiting. > I second this suggestion. cronie upstream isn't dead at all. cronie is a drop-in unlike fcron which was favored earlier. Kaiting said he would even be willing to become a developer to maintain this in [core] himself in case no other developer was interested. Is there anything that would keep us from making it default and also replace dcron? -- Sven-Hendrik
