Bug#391836: debian-policy: New virtual package: cron-daemon

[Bill Allombert <Bill.Allombert@math.u-bordeaux1.fr>]

On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 09:32:25AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> 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.

Ah right...

> > 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"?

I agree. A survey of package depending on cron is in order.

Cheers,
-- 
Bill. <ballombe@debian.org>

Imagine a large red swirl here.