Bug#293691: schedtool
On Saturday 03 September 2005 23:57, Janne Kujanpaa wrote:
--cut--
> > Personally I don't see much that schedtool offers over schedutils.
>
> SCHED_ISO, SCHED_BATCH and better documentation for program usage and
> new schedulers. Some people prefer vim and some other emacs.
Right. Also we have many examples of different packages providing almost
identical functionality but anyway not the same. There is no accounting for
tastes.. tricky ones ;-)
> > Well the package looks fine to me, so if you want I have no objections
> > sponsoring it.
Good to know that.
> I'll wait for version 1.3.0.
Agreed. Anyway we can talk to unit-linux upstream to replace rml's code with
schedtool at some point, but I do not think it is of any importance since I
expect/believe there would be more userland code like these in the future.
> > Also of interest is bug 322883. You might want to talk to util-linux
> > upstream about merging schedtool with schedutils.
>
> I checked util-linux version 2.12q and there wasn't code from schedutils.
it is in 2.13* into the testing/ directory.
--
pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 <people.fccf.net/danchev/key pgp.mit.edu>
fingerprint 1AE7 7C66 0A26 5BFF DF22 5D55 1C57 0C89 0E4B D0AB
Reply to: