On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 02:32:42AM -0400, 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 don't want to be pedantic, but what's the point of that? Moving arbitrary cron daemons that no one uses to [community] is nonsense (according to the TU guidelines, you shouldn't even have moved it without prior discussion and consensus on aur-general at all - but as I said before, I don't want to be pedantic here...) Adding yet another cron daemon to our repositories makes sense as soon as there's a clear decision to switch default daemons. Just moving low usage stuff to [community] because you're able to do so definitely doesn't...
