Bug#391836: debian-policy: New virtual package: cron-daemon
On Fri, Sep 11 2009, 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?
Hmm. You do have a point. However, the original use case was
for a package to be able to have it's log files rotated periodically,
and by that criteria cron, anacron, fcron, and bcron do fit the bill.
I think perhaps we need to pare down the requirements (and
perhaps change the name of the virtual package), so that packages that
just want a periodic job scheduler don't have to specify a list of
matching providers.
Requirements:
1) Be able to run a batch job periodically.
2) Correct execution of /etc/cron.{hourly,daily,weekly,monthly}
These schedulers claim to be drop in replacements of Vixie cron:
cron, bcron
fcron says that is implements most of what Vixie cron does; but
does not claim to be a drop in replacement.
Anacron does not seem to make any claims about vixie cron
compatibility at all.
However, all of them should meet the bill, as far as the
original use case goes.
manoj
--
Hope that the day after you die is a nice day.
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Reply to: