On Wed, Dec 11, 2013, Pavlos Ratis wrote: > On Tue, Dec 10, 2013, Pacho Ramos <pa...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=197625#c14 > > > > This has reminded me that maybe we should switch to cronie from > > vixie-cron as default and recommended cron provider in Handbook. Last > > time I checked, vixie-cron upstream was died while cronie forked it > > fixing some bugs :/ > > > > What do you think?
Thanks for bringing it to attention: I've always been happy with vixie-cron, so never even thought of switching. It's good to know the code is being maintained, albeit in a fork. > I am all for it. I wouldn't say that vixie-cron is dead since it is still > functional, however I would rather say that it is outdated. > In my opinion, cronie, unlike the other cron variants is the most reliable. Ah that's good to know: the only hesitation on my part was that fcron appears more functional, but if someone wants that they can install it themselves, and this way we get anacron out of the box, and maintained code. > Also, many other distributions like Arch[1] and openSUSE[2] have already > switched from vixie-cron to cronie. Yeah that helps in terms of documentation, collaboration and just knowing it's not a risky move. I'm all for it, too, especially now Dale's done the guinea-pig run ;) Regards, steveL -- #friendly-coders -- We're friendly, but we're not /that/ friendly ;-)
