On Fri, 26.11.10 02:07, Miloslav TrmaÄ (mitr@xxxxxxxx) wrote: > Lennart Poettering pÃÅe v PÃ 26. 11. 2010 v 01:27 +0100: > > On Thu, 25.11.10 17:33, Tomas Mraz (tmraz@xxxxxxxxxx) wrote: > > And also, cron does a couple of really nasty things. For example it > > wakes up in regular intervals to check if a job is ready to run. It does > > so to deal with wallclock time changes/suspends. In systemd we are > > working on a different way to solve this, so that we can actually sleep > > as long as possible, and don't have to wake up in regular > > intervals. > Great. You can fix cron then, this does not mean it is necessary to > integrate the two. Well, I actually believe we should design an OS here, not just a set of independent tools. And that means I think closer integration is good and only has benefits. > > To summarize this: the current logic of cron is not pretty. And it > > duplicates process spawning and babysitting which already exists in way > > too many daemons, > I think you'll find the execution of processes is a comparatively small > part of cron. Well, and that's why it is also very limited. > And anyway, "process spawning and babysitting" will > _always_ exist in many different daemons, unless you want to run the > whole system within a single systemd process. Sure, no doubt about that. But unifying this for system stuff is a good thing, not a bad thing. > It would be much much better for the ecosystem to extract these parts > of systemd into a library (perhaps standalone, perhaps interacting > with the system-wide systemd runtime) that can be used in any other > process that needs to run a task in a separately tracked "daemon > group". Mirek Well, I don't think that that technically makes any sense. Sorry. Lennart -- Lennart Poettering - Red Hat, Inc. -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
