Evangelos Foutras wrote: > On 22/04/11 00:30, Grigorios Bouzakis wrote: >> Ionut Biru wrote: >>> 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. > > The package will no longer be in the 'base' group, and most likely end > up in the AUR. Therefore, it will not be a supported package, and the > output of `pacman -Qm' will reflect that. > >> But since its not replaced, it would make it an infinite part of Arch so >> it should also be supported. > > As I mention above, my understanding is that dcron will be moved to the AUR. > >> Plus, the 2010.05 ISOs will still (try to) install it, but it wont be >> there, and there wont be an upgrade path either. > > In offline installations, the package will exist on the installation > media. On netinstalls, the new cron daemon will get installed to the > target system instead. > An unsupported package installed by the official installation media. Like i said it doesnt make sense to me. But you got a plan. So just go with it. And hopefully there'll never be another debate about cron around here in the future. ---- Greg
