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