Manoj Srivastava <sriva...@debian.org> writes: > I suggest, then, that we follow POSIX (please note that @reboot > and @daily and other such convenient contractions are not mentioned in > the standard, though cron(1) supports them):
> http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/utilities/crontab.html > The important bits are extracted below. Should policy add > support requirements for @reboot et al? I suspect that we need to document that packages may rely on @reboot, @yearly, @monthly, @weekly, @daily, and @hourly, and also on the */2 syntax. We also need to document that, contrary POSIX, files in /etc/cron.d have seven fields instead of six, with the sixth field naming the local user as which the cron job runs. That's a common error when writing cron.d files. Do both of our proposed cron daemons support that same syntax? (Does anyone here use bcron to comment on that?) > Given that, should this be duplicated in a normative section of > policy? Or can we just vaguely hand wave the reader over to POSIX? Or > add this as an informative footnote? I would prefer to point people to POSIX but document the above exceptions, similar to how we do for /bin/sh. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
