On Thursday, April 21, 2011 01:48:04 Sven-Hendrik Haase wrote: > 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 I'm still trying to understand WHY we suddenly feel the need to replace dcron when its not even broken. Replacing packages with other packages purely because they're new is something Fedora and Ubuntu would do, I though Arch wasn't about arbitrarily replacing its defaults but using what was simple and what works. Can someone explain to me why we think we need a new crond?
