On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 03:15:41PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote: > On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 02:36:26PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > > 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? > Maybe I am confused but anacron depends on cron, so a system with anacron > installed should provide all the feature of cron, right ? Nope, anacron Recommends: cron. > A point of reference: as far as popularity-contest is concerned (one of that > package having a dependency on cron) the only feature required is support for > /etc/cron.daily. So a case could be made for a cron-daemon virtual package > with a much smaller interface. Well, I don't think I would call that virtual package "cron-daemon" then. "cron-daily"? Cheers, -- 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