From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gentoo-dev+bounces-63865-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>
Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80])
by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF3A913827E
for <garchives@archives.gentoo.org>; Wed, 11 Dec 2013 23:42:11 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 422A3E0BEC;
Wed, 11 Dec 2013 23:42:05 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-pb0-f43.google.com (mail-pb0-f43.google.com [209.85.160.43])
(using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 38BCAE0B41
for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Wed, 11 Dec 2013 23:42:03 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-pb0-f43.google.com with SMTP id rq2so10928396pbb.30
for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Wed, 11 Dec 2013 15:42:03 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject
:from:to:content-type;
bh=TufuWCMYC7jibsPzintPlhdb5QpAEwoJ8Em2QSsOKwk=;
b=mSBWukykHUbiu8GjWp6weB7aPSCsDORQFUVPLbICm35KiAHj9rY5jx34DtsKfX8YPy
xQ+dgO/dY0UZcvBzyv2S8kvxu+rgZBO59DNDor7r7DjRTi3oBqpGURIwqzUBgh9/Uw0W
warfE40shdfASiTxVVtUEg+eNXS9lYpYka3Cvfv9HAY19gFeTpbYrU/tfdz49Mesw8is
DD81VGvCmuWfclih0u5BIuQYYbCr4GWtwR6BXx5tAUnJJaJ4OItLA8dk6u/ZATAmrbhH
oBwZS/iAgOd3g5y+dHoHBhq2vwvqdLGCQICbl2OO3JP0E7MyKPVQe6WrK+ZQuWHQbtus
HLcA==
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-dev+help@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-dev.gentoo.org>
X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.68.130.234 with SMTP id oh10mr6093467pbb.0.1386805323125;
Wed, 11 Dec 2013 15:42:03 -0800 (PST)
Sender: dastergon@gmail.com
Received: by 10.68.56.198 with HTTP; Wed, 11 Dec 2013 15:42:03 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <1386708905.1931.2.camel@belkin5>
References: <1386708905.1931.2.camel@belkin5>
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 23:42:03 +0000
X-Google-Sender-Auth: idWPlGgGUb2wwC4amu9hScPNcpw
Message-ID: <CAOgmxWwOWAXOdYrXuoW_98r7SuF3o8SSjRPHP7y4PBAoxfA-_w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Recommend cronie instead of vixie-cron in handbook?
From: Pavlos Ratis <dastergon@gentoo.org>
To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b10cb75a8597104ed4ac649
X-Archives-Salt: 3c15468f-e939-4310-aa57-fe39a191c2ab
X-Archives-Hash: d898f86f805909eb72aba61d2dca8523
--047d7b10cb75a8597104ed4ac649
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 8:55 PM, Pacho Ramos <pacho@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?
>
>
>
>
>
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.
Also, many other distributions like Arch[1] and openSUSE[2] have already
switched from vixie-cron to cronie.
Note: We need a new entry for cronie to our Cron wiki page [3]
[1] https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/cron
[2] http://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Cron_replace
[3] https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Cron
Pavlos
--047d7b10cb75a8597104ed4ac649
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr"><br><div class=3D"gmail_extra">On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 8:5=
5 PM, Pacho Ramos <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:pacho@gentoo.org"=
target=3D"_blank">pacho@gentoo.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class=3D"=
gmail_quote">
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-=
left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><a href=3D"https://bugs.g=
entoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3D197625#c14" target=3D"_blank">https://bugs.gent=
oo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3D197625#c14</a><br>
<br>
This has reminded me that maybe we should switch to cronie from<br>
vixie-cron as default and recommended cron provider in Handbook. Last<br>
time I checked, vixie-cron upstream was died while cronie forked it<br>
fixing some bugs :/<br>
<br>
What do you think?<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote></div><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra">I am all for it. I =
wouldn't say that vixie-cron is dead since it is still functional, howe=
ver I would rather say that it is outdated. <br>In my opinion, cronie, unli=
ke the other cron variants is the most reliable.<br>
Also, many other distributions like Arch[1] and openSUSE[2] have already sw=
itched from vixie-cron to cronie.<br><br>Note: We need a new entry for cron=
ie to our Cron wiki page [3]<br><br>[1] <a href=3D"https://wiki.archlinux.o=
rg/index.php/cron">https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/cron</a><br>
[2] <a href=3D"http://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Cron_replace">http://en.open=
suse.org/openSUSE:Cron_replace</a><br>[3] <a href=3D"https://wiki.gentoo.or=
g/wiki/Cron">https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Cron</a><br><br></div><div class=
=3D"gmail_extra">
Pavlos<br></div></div>
--047d7b10cb75a8597104ed4ac649--