Re: soliciting opinions about potential new cron/at features.
Roderick Schertler <roderick@argon.org> writes:
> Punting to cron doesn't fix the problem you're trying to fix. The
> job will never run unless the user's machine is up when the
> transaction is meant to take place. anacron is meant to fix that,
> but even that doesn't work for you -- my system is generally up 24
> hours a day so I have no need for anacron, but sometimes I take it
> down to work on the hardware or to install a new kernel or whatever.
This is a good point. What about newer versions of at? I played
around once, and it looked like (for better or for worse), at runs its
missed jobs next time it starts up. Given that, and the (simpler)
modification to at I proposed (the addition of optional unique job
id's), I think I could have a workable solution.
Thoughts?
--
Rob Browning <rlb@cs.utexas.edu> PGP=E80E0D04F521A094 532B97F5D64E3930
Reply to: