Summary: | incron/anacron replacement for sys-process/cronbase and fcrontab handling | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | Gentoo Linux | Reporter: | Ryan Reich <ryan.reich> |
Component: | New packages | Assignee: | Cron Team <cron-bugs+disabled> |
Status: | RESOLVED DUPLICATE | ||
Severity: | enhancement | CC: | wschlich |
Priority: | High | ||
Version: | unspecified | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Package list: | Runtime testing required: | --- | |
Attachments: |
My proposed incron ebuild
Diff of my ebuild against existing (empty) ebuild |
Description
Ryan Reich
2007-07-10 01:50:44 UTC
Created attachment 124392 [details]
My proposed incron ebuild
Comment on attachment 124392 [details]
My proposed incron ebuild
Format: .tar.bz2
Please, attach a diff against current ebuild, no tarballs. http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/handbook/handbook.xml?part=2&chap=3#doc_chap2 Created attachment 124415 [details, diff]
Diff of my ebuild against existing (empty) ebuild
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 162346 *** I have to complain a little about this bug being marked a duplicate. Bug 162346 is merely an ebuild for incron with no other contents or intents; this one concerns the cron system in general in addition to providing an ebuild. I am afraid that this, which is the main point of the bug, will be lost since no one will give much priority to a "duplicate" bug and, perhaps, not even read it again. Please reconsider, or, as I commented in the other bug, reverse the order of duplication. Although the other one came first, mine is strictly more comprehensive. you dont combine issues ... one bug per issue Bug 162346 is about incron anacron vs run-crons isnt bug worthy yet as that is still being hashed out on the mailing list (assuming there's even anything to change) I'm not combining issues. I present a single issue: the cron setup is broken. I then propose a solution: incron, ebuild provided. I mention anacron as well because the incron solution ONLY makes sense for fcron (hence, anacron vs. run-crons is a feature of my solution to the bug, not a separate issue); however, you can take my report as a suggestion to remove cronbase as a dependency for fcron entirely and replace it with my incron ebuild, ignoring any anacron issues (I don't care about them anyway; I was just trying to be helpful). My point is that if you let this bug go down as a duplicate of Bug 162346 its connection to the cron problem will be lost, someone will wonder why I included these weird script and config files, and then they'll reject my ebuild because they don't understand what it was intended for. If they even read it, which seems unlikely since the ebuild of Bug 162346 has already made it into some kind of testing tree. If this issue is still being debated on the mailing list I would like to participate. However, the only such debate on gentoo-dev is the one I started, and it's been dead for a week; where is this debate taking place? The reason I filed this bug is that I was advised to do so by Robert Buchholtz in that thread; the reason I didn't attach the patch to Bug 162346 is that I consider it to address a larger issue, and I didn't want to pollute that bug report with my own cause (one bug, one bug report?). |