[arch-general] Change Arch's default crond

[Thomas S Hatch]

On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 9:37 AM, Yaro Kasear <yaro at marupa.net> wrote:

> On Thursday, April 21, 2011 01:48:04 Sven-Hendrik Haase wrote:
> > On 21.04.2011 08:32, Kaiting Chen wrote:
> > > On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 11:32 AM, David C. Rankin <
> > >
> > > drankinatty at suddenlinkmail.com> wrote:
> > >> On 04/06/2011 10:34 PM, Heiko Baums wrote:
> > >>> Upstream stability makes sense. If redhat is behind cronie, then that
> > >>>
> > >>>>>  seems like the logical choice.
> > >>>
> > >>> Why is this logical? Is it the developer what makes a software good
> or
> > >>> is it the features and the stability? If Redhat's cronie has less
> > >>> features than fcron then fcron is the logical choice, of course.
> > >>>
> > >>  You are correct. The long term stability was just my thought. Like I
> > >>  said
> > >>
> > >> earlier in my message -- It doesn't matter to me which cron we have --
> > >> as long as we have one that works :)  I have no say in the matter, so
> I
> > >> will, of course, defer to whatever decision you guys reach. I just
> want
> > >> to make sure we have a cron by default :)
> > >
> > > So what's the status here? I pulled cronie into [community-testing] a
> > > couple of days ago and will probably merge it into [community] soon. So
> > > that's the one I vote.
> > >
> > > But regardless of which one we choose in my opinion the sooner we get
> rid
> > > of dcron the better. --Kaiting.
> >
> > I second this suggestion. cronie upstream isn't dead at all. cronie is a
> > drop-in unlike fcron which was favored earlier. Kaiting said he would
> > even be willing to become a developer to maintain this in [core] himself
> > in case no other developer was  interested.
> >
> > Is there anything that would keep us from making it default and also
> > replace dcron?
> >
> > -- Sven-Hendrik
>
> I'm still trying to understand WHY we suddenly feel the need to replace
> dcron
> when its not even broken. Replacing packages with other packages purely
> because they're new is something Fedora and Ubuntu would do, I though Arch
> wasn't about arbitrarily replacing its defaults but using what was simple
> and
> what works.
>
> Can someone explain to me why we think we need a new crond?
>

The discussion is based on upstream not responding to bugs in dcron and the
overall lack of upstream development/responsiveness.