Am Dienstag, den 07.01.2020, 20:19 -0800 schrieb Russ Allbery: > Noah Meyerhans <no...@debian.org> writes: > > On Wed, Jan 08, 2020 at 02:43:08AM +0100, Daniel Leidert wrote: > > > I disagree here. I don't want you to overrule my decision for a > > > cron-script. If a user has enabled a cron-job you shouldn't change that > > > to a systemd timer unit without the user's explicit approval. > > I'm not sure that I take CRON=1 as meaning "I want to use cron forever". > > I'd rather interpret it as "I want to enable spamassassin's daily > > maintenance job". The details of how it's accomplished aren't really > > relevant, IMO. > > Yeah, that's my reaction as well. The point is to run the job > periodically.
No. The configuration says CRON=1. It doesn't say PERIODIC_CHECKS=1. Your behavior here is pretty similar to Microsofts: Let the user decide if updates shouldn't be automatically installed and still install a bunch of them automatically without his approval independent of his decision. I have enabled a cron-job, not a systemd timer unit. And I don't want you to silently override this. > A timer unit is easier to enable and disable. That's just your opinion and not a fact. And FWIW I disagree. > I think most > users (I'm one) will not care about how this is done. I do - as a Debian user and as a spamassassin user. [use a debconf question] > > Yeah, that's probably the best way in terms of user flexibility. I'm > > not convinced it's necessary, though, and I don't like the idea of all > > the other packages undergoing similar transitions all having to > > introduce similar debconf questions. > > I share your dubiousness that adding tons of debconf prompts for cases > like this (there are likely to be a bunch of them) makes sense. If you share that "dubiousness" I really have to wonder why Noah himself raised the question in the first place. Regards, Daniel
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
