Re: cron jobs more often than daily
On 09-Jan-1998 17:00:04, Martin Schulze <joey@kuolema.Infodrom.North.DE> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 09, 1998 at 04:30:43PM +0100, Remco Blaakmeer wrote:
>
> > The update-cron script could be very simple, like:
> >
> > #!/bin/sh
> > cat <<EOF > /etc/crontab.tmp
> > # DO NOT EDIT THIS FILE. It will be overwritten by the update-cron script.
> > # Instead, edit the appropriate file in /etc/cron.d and re-run update-cron .
> > #
> > EOF
> > cat /etc/cron.d/* >> /etc/crontab.tmp
> > mv /etc/crontab.tmp /etc/crontab
>
> That's far too easy. :)
Yes, that's far too easy, not to mention guaranteed to break existing systems.
>
> > Advantage: cron doesn't need to be modified
>
> Disadvantage: Users adding cronjobs might see their jobs removed.
> But as there is a note at the beginning this should be acceptable.
Totally unacceptable.
> > I think there should be no modifications to cron that make Debian
> > incompatible with other unixes, if they can be avoided.
>
> Seconded.
Why is it bad to have cron read files directly from cron.d, and
acceptable to have it read a crontab that's built from files in
cron.d. In the first case, if I mod crontab, it doesn't get overwritten,
and I have to go to cron.d to modify some things. In the second,
if I mod crontab, it *does* get overwritten, and I have to cron.d
to modify things. What's the difference, except that I'm more likely
to screw stuff up in the second case?
steve
--
Steve Greenland
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org .
Trouble? e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .
Reply to: