Mike Frysinger wrote: >> I have to disagree in this particular case. The anacron homepage, >> anacron.sourceforge.net, gives this exact situation as its primary >> example of what anacron is intended for. Sure, it's not good for >> handling more complex scheduling, but it seems to do what run-crons >> tries to do: run jobs that should have been executed while the >> computer was off, as soon as it comes back on. Am I missing something >> subtle? > > run-crons transparently gives all crons this behavior with very little > overhead rather than making every user set up a dual system: a standard > cron and anacron. > > run-crons is a default helper for crons that just works. if you want to > not use it but opt for anacron instead, nothing is stopping you from doing > exactly that.
I think Mr Frysinger is grudgingly conceding the point, so can we have some stats eg on CPU time saved blah blah blah? But it'd be really sweet if you could post em on the forums, as the technical discussion seems over for now. (At least to this friendly-coder ;-)) ie: market it to the user base please, not the devs ;) Please be sure that this works from a clean install and test it on a live box as the only system-- for a period of at least a week, as you collect sample data. A write up of how to make it work would be ideal for Documentation, Tips & Tricks imo. "2 of 5 - recall to pub" *bzzt*.. click. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
