Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 11:10:26 -0500 From: rjk@sparcmill.grauel.com (Richard J Kuhns) To: "M.R.Murphy" <mrm@Mole.ORG> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: The crontab controversy Message-ID: <199606271610.LAA18858@sparcmill.grauel.com> In-Reply-To: <199606271520.IAA20509@meerkat.mole.org> References: <199606271520.IAA20509@meerkat.mole.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
M. R. Murphy writes: > > > Should we: > > > > > > 1. Declare the ATT method the winner. > > > 2. Declare the BSD method (the REAL original crontab) the winner. > > > 3. Make the installation program remove one or the other at install > > > (put /var/cront/tabs/root in with the same actions as /etc/crontab > > > and have the install remove one or the other) > > > 4. Ignore the problem and trap the users/admins? > > > > > > > In order of preference, 1 3 2 4. > > > > Method 1 (/var/cron/tabs/*) offers the greatest versatility and > > consistency; it's sole disadvantage, as far as I can see, is that it > > requires root to execute one additional commmand when changing the system > > crontab file: "crontab new_crontab". I'd even be willing to argue that > > this is a Good Thing. Furthermore, a crontab file is a crontab file is a > > crontab file. This makes it easier to write a script that (syntactically) > > verifies crontab files before installing them. > > Before making such a decision, it might be a good thing to > > 1. man cron > 2. man 1 crontab > 3. man 5 crontab > 4. cat /etc/crontab > I've read them all. > and understand the reasons that cron is now the way that it is. So what are they? I still see NO reason for using 2 different formats by default, and the "/var/cron/tabs" method is more versatile than the monolithic "/etc/crontab" method. -- Rich Kuhns rjk@grauel.com PO Box 6249 Tel: (317)477-6000 x319 100 Sawmill Road Lafayette, IN 47903
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199606271610.LAA18858>