David Craven <da...@craven.ch> skribis: >> Not sure I understand the problem. ‘mcron-jobs’ wouldn’t collide with >> anything else AFAICS, and it would be clearer than just ‘jobs’ no? > > What I mean is that mcron-jobs assumes that the mcron-service is used. > Calling it something general like jobs or cron-jobs wouldn't require > renaming, if someone wants to use a different cron implementation. For > example in an embedded system someone might prefer to use the > busybox/toybox cron implementation. I'm not sure what other job time > scheduling solutions exist. But a job is something that needs to run > at specific times and has a bounded run time. I don't know how cron > specific this feature is, or if the name of the job scheduler it's > relevant as part of an operating-system declaration.
Oh, I see. The mcron jobs that we define in GuixSD directly use mcron’s Scheme API; IOW, we don’t provide any abstraction over what mcron provides. Thus it would be really hard to retarget such job specs to tools other than mcron. For this reason I think we should keep the ‘mcron-’ prefix here. Does it make sense? (The situation is comparable to that of Shepherd services.) Ludo’.
