| 1 |
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013, Pavlos Ratis wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, Dec 10, 2013, Pacho Ramos <pacho@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> > https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=197625#c14 |
| 5 |
> > |
| 6 |
> > This has reminded me that maybe we should switch to cronie from |
| 7 |
> > vixie-cron as default and recommended cron provider in Handbook. Last |
| 8 |
> > time I checked, vixie-cron upstream was died while cronie forked it |
| 9 |
> > fixing some bugs :/ |
| 10 |
> > |
| 11 |
> > What do you think? |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Thanks for bringing it to attention: I've always been happy with vixie-cron, |
| 14 |
so never even thought of switching. It's good to know the code is being |
| 15 |
maintained, albeit in a fork. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
> I am all for it. I wouldn't say that vixie-cron is dead since it is still |
| 18 |
> functional, however I would rather say that it is outdated. |
| 19 |
> In my opinion, cronie, unlike the other cron variants is the most reliable. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Ah that's good to know: the only hesitation on my part was that fcron appears |
| 22 |
more functional, but if someone wants that they can install it themselves, |
| 23 |
and this way we get anacron out of the box, and maintained code. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
> Also, many other distributions like Arch[1] and openSUSE[2] have already |
| 26 |
> switched from vixie-cron to cronie. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Yeah that helps in terms of documentation, collaboration and just knowing |
| 29 |
it's not a risky move. I'm all for it, too, especially now Dale's done the |
| 30 |
guinea-pig run ;) |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Regards, |
| 33 |
steveL |
| 34 |
-- |
| 35 |
#friendly-coders -- We're friendly, but we're not /that/ friendly ;-) |
Archives