On Apr 21, 2011, at 17:30, Grigorios Bouzakis <grbzks@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Ionut Biru wrote: >> On 04/22/2011 12:11 AM, Grigorios Bouzakis wrote: >>> Ionut Biru wrote: >>>> On 04/21/2011 02:18 PM, Heiko Baums wrote: >>>>> Am Thu, 21 Apr 2011 08:48:04 +0200 >>>>> schrieb Sven-Hendrik Haase<sh@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>: >>>>> >>>>>> I second this suggestion. cronie upstream isn't dead at all. cronie >>>>>> is a drop-in unlike fcron which was favored earlier. >>>>> >>>>> Is it such a drop-in like the new dcron when dcron upstream was adopted >>>>> by this Arch user? >>>>> >>>>> Better look at the features and the use cases (don't only think of some >>>>> 24/7 servers, but also think of the desktop users) and not at some small >>>>> differences in the crontab syntax. It's definitely not such a big work >>>>> to re-adjust a few crontab entries if this is necessary at all. And this >>>>> work has to be done only once and can probably be done with sed. >>>>> >>>> >>>> i think you are not understanding the process. >>>> >>>> if cronie is moved in core, it won't have a replaces=dcron. Only new >>>> installations will get cronie by default instead of dcron. >>>> >>> >>> How is that possible? Are you saying that the broken dcron will stay in >>> core and there will two packages for cron? >>> Otherwise i dont understand how it wont be replaced (for all users). >>> >> >> >> if this will happen, the steps are very simple >> 1) remove dcron from core >> 2) add cronie/fcron to core in base group and depending on the package, >> it might have conflicts=dcron but not replaces >> >> this way the existent systems will still have a "working" cron and new >> installations will have the new cron >> > > Has that ever happened before? > That means the existing systems will have a package from base thats not > supported by the Arch developers. > But since its not replaced, it would make it an infinite part of Arch so > it should also be supported. > Plus, the 2010.05 ISOs will still (try to) install it, but it wont be > there, and there wont be an upgrade path either. > Anyway, first time i've heard about such a plan. It makes absolutely no > sense to me. I seriously doubt its gonna work. But good luck. > > ---- > Greg Things have got to be deprecated eventually. Why can't we keep dcron in [core] for a while longer? And remove it when any install media that requires it becomes unsupported? Kiwis and Limes: http://kaitocracy.blogspot.com/
