On Mon, Oct 05 2009, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 05, 2009 at 10:40:02AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 01 2009, Steve Langasek wrote:
>>
>> > On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 01:43:39PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> >> >> Hi, the bcron-run package provides /etc/crontab, which includes
>> >
>> >> >> 24 4 * * * root test -x /usr/sbin/anacron || run-parts --report
>> >> >> /etc/cron.daily
>> >
>> >> > Ok, then the bcron-run package (but not the bcron package) would meet
>> >> > that
>> >> > requirement.
>> >
>> >> So. We have a criteria that would allow for anyone needing to
>> >> set up a periodic cron job, and at least two packages that provide such
>> >> functionality: cron, and bcron-run.
>> >
>> >> Is this sufficient to add a virtual package?
>> >
>> > Given that there's demand for it, seems fine to me.
>>
>> Do I hear another second? Russ, do you still want policy
>> changed, given that the requirements are so pared down now?
>
> What I like to know is the use case for such virtual package. I know about
> popularity-contest cron.daily job, but waht about the other ?
The original use case was for logfile rotation; but really, thi
can be for package that needs periodic tasks to be done (devotee would
like to recommend this, for the processing done during a vote -- while
devotee does not set up a periodic task on install, the voting
mechanism would be crippled without a periodic job execution
mechanism).
So, the generic use case is any periodic task execution.
manoj
--
"Confound these ancestors.... They've stolen our best ideas!" Ben Jonson
Manoj Srivastava <[email protected]> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
