On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 12:54:10AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > Are there any seconds to the proposal to create a virtual > package cron-daemon? The rationale is for packages like logratate, > which otherwise would need to depend on cron | anacron | fcron | bcron | > etc. Given how anacron works, I think it fails almost all of the requirements below, so should not be eligible to declare this virtual package. fcron's Conflicts / description suggest it may have a similar problem. Is this virtual package still useful in that case? > The requirements for providing cron-daemon are: > [ POSIX ] > - Has to provide /usr/bin/crontab and support crontab entries > [ Implemented in most Linux / BSD distributions, including Debian, but not > in Solaris, HP-UX or AIX's cron ] > - Correct execution of /etc/cron.d > - Correct support of /etc/crontab > - Correct support of /etc/cron.{allow,deny} > - Has to support 'crontab -u' > - Support of crontab entries with extended features (i.e. those in Vixie > Cron need to be supported), these include names for days and months, > ranges, step values and the 'special strings' (@reboot, @yearly..) > [ Debian-specific feature ] > - Correct execution of /etc/cron.{hourly,daily,weekly,monthly} This last feature is the only one anacron supports, but a) it doesn't support cron.hourly, and b) anacron relies on cron for launching via /etc/cron.d... Also, cron's handling of /etc/cron.{hourly,daily,weekly,monthly} is simply done through ordinary /etc/crontab entries... and /etc/crontab is a conffile. Should each cron-daemon package provide that conffile? -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ slangasek@ubuntu.com vorlon@debian.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature