On Wed, Jan 17, 2001 at 06:43 +1000, Greg Black wrote:
> Gerhard Sittig wrote:
> >
> > In http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=24358 ("/etc/rc
> > variables for cron(8)") I suggest how to provide knobs to
> > pass parameters to cron as well as to swit
On Wed, Jan 17, 2001 at 18:48 +0100, Gerhard Sittig wrote:
>
> I'm just editing the PR with the cron patches [ ... ]
So it finally happened. It's filed as "bin/24485: [PATCH] to
make cron(8) handle clock jumps" and got archived at
http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr
uninterested list members.
Thank you for reading this and considering what would aid in
solving the problem. Have a nice day!
virtually yours 82D1 9B9C 01DC 4FB4 D7B4 61BE 3F49 4F77 72DE DA76
Gerhard Sittig true | mail -s "get gpg key" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
If you don't
But I feel strings like "STD,PIPE,TEE" are
harder to parse and single character notation like the "wt" mode
flags are harder to find (think of) and to read (in terms of
eyeballing the source code) for the sdo case.
virtually yours 82D1 9B9C 01DC 4FB4 D7B4 61BE 3F49 4F77 72DE DA76
Gerhard Sittig true | mail -s "get gpg key" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
If you don't understand or are scared by any of the above
ask your parents or an adult to help you.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
[ I'm not subscribed to -hackers, please keep CC'ing me; thanks! ]
On Mon, Nov 20, 2000 at 19:33 +0100, Gerhard Sittig wrote:
>
> [ ... cron and DST ... ]
>
> But I thought modifying cron(8) itself would be the best way.
> Is someone already working on this or shoul
[ ... reminder after two weeks of silence ... ]
On Tue, Dec 05, 2000 at 22:56 +0100, Gerhard Sittig wrote:
>
> [ I'm not subscribed to -hackers, please keep CC'ing me; thanks! ]
>
> [ ... ]
>
> This took the DST handling code of OpenBSD's cron, le
[ this message is no personal affront against you, Doug, but an
expression of what feeling this kind of behaviour causes for
those who want to share and find themselves ignored ]
On Mon, Jan 01, 2001 at 18:06 -0800, Doug Barton wrote:
> Gerhard Sittig wrote:
> >
> > [ ... rem
on(8) isn't broken but that users
should shuffle around the daily job's execution time ...
virtually yours 82D1 9B9C 01DC 4FB4 D7B4 61BE 3F49 4F77 72DE DA76
Gerhard Sittig true | mail -s "get gpg key" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
If you don't understand or are scared b
for CC'ing me. Otherwise there would be turn
around times of some five days when I had to follow the thread
via the web interface. :)
virtually yours 82D1 9B9C 01DC 4FB4 D7B4 61BE 3F49 4F77 72DE DA76
Gerhard Sittig true | mail -s "get gpg key" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
If you d
better: the
way leading to one) in there.
virtually yours 82D1 9B9C 01DC 4FB4 D7B4 61BE 3F49 4F77 72DE DA76
Gerhard Sittig true | mail -s "get gpg key" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
If you don't understand or are scared by any of the above
ask your parents or an adul
moved backward by less than 3 hours,
+those jobs that fall into the repeated time will not be run.
+.Pp
+Only jobs that run at a particular time (not specified as @hourly, nor with
+.Ql *
+in the hour or minute specifier)
+are
+affected.
+Jobs which are specified with wildcards are run based on th
On Tue, Jan 09, 2001 at 02:14 -0800, Doug Barton wrote:
> Gerhard Sittig wrote:
> >
> > It's not that I want to talk you into something you don't
> > want.
>
> But that's exactly what you're trying to do.
Honestly -- no! :) OK, I've b
Neil's idea of using UTC for specifying
execution times and thereby eliminating any ambiguity, I'm afraid
this will make FreeBSD do something nobody else does this way --
I'm not clear as to how much this would confuse admins.
What do other sibling projects do in this situation? Admit
On Thu, Jan 11, 2001 at 01:05 -0800, Doug Barton wrote:
> Gerhard Sittig wrote:
> >
> > Looking at the echo returning so far
>
> Which represents a very small percentage of the people who need
> to look at the change. A significant percentage (probably a
> majo
On Thu, Jan 11, 2001 at 13:19 -0500, Darren Henderson wrote:
>
> On Wed, 10 Jan 2001, Gerhard Sittig wrote:
>
> > Looking at the echo returning so far I see _much_ more "yes"
> > than "nope" answers. There's consent that *something* has to
>
[ for the impatient there's a summary at the bottom ("/summarize") ]
On Thu, Jan 11, 2001 at 16:33 +1000, Greg Black wrote:
> Gerhard Sittig wrote:
>
> > I take notice of your (and Greg Black's) reservation / being
> > opposed, respect it and conclude that
t is expected to be broken by
being touched. For whatever the definition of "broken" might be:
deviation from expected behaviour or introduction of real bugs.
I feel that the proposed extension will contribute to everybody's
satisfaction ...
virtually yours 82D1 9B9C 01DC 4FB4 D7
17 matches
Mail list logo
