On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 9:37 AM, Yaro Kasear <yaro@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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? > The discussion is based on upstream not responding to bugs in dcron and the overall lack of upstream development/responsiveness.
