Package Details: dcron 4.5-8

Git Clone URL: https://aur.archlinux.org/dcron.git (read-only)
Package Base: dcron
Description: dillon's lightweight cron daemon
Upstream URL: http://www.jimpryor.net/linux/dcron.html
Licenses: GPL
Conflicts: cron
Provides: cron
Submitter: xyproto
Maintainer: x33a
Last Packager: x33a
Votes: 34
Popularity: 0.037040
First Submitted: 2013-01-24 14:33
Last Updated: 2016-02-15 06:41

Dependencies (2)

Required by (17)

Sources (2)

Latest Comments

1 2 3 4 Next › Last »

giddie commented on 2018-05-22 07:46

Great! I think the issues / pull requests can be made here:

https://github.com/dubiousjim/dcron

The website for dcron is at: http://www.jimpryor.net/linux/dcron.html

ashkan commented on 2018-05-22 00:55

I noticed a mistake in the crontab manpage but I can't seem to figure out where the proper place to submit a bug or PR would be since this package is quite old and it's hosted on the archlinux git repository. (Specifically the location of the timestamp files is not /var/spool/cron/cron-stamps/user.jobname but /var/spool/cronstamps/user.jobname)

x33a commented on 2016-02-15 06:44

@mnovick1988, done.

EndlessEden commented on 2016-02-14 04:35

please add armv7h, as well. (RPI-2)

x33a commented on 2015-06-17 11:06

Updated PKGBUILD. Now it explicitly mentions armv6h instead of any.

Thanks all.

giddie commented on 2015-06-17 10:58

Oh yeah, sorry: I think I misunderstood your question. Yeah, it shouldn't be a problem to do this on the AUR, as the AUR isn't officially supported anyway, so I'd say we're free to put whatever we like in arch. I've done this for a couple of my packages.

x33a commented on 2015-06-17 10:58

Yes, I know about the syntax. But I was thinking about the guidelines. But apparently, it is fine to include other architectures in AUR packages since AUR is unsupported as a whole.

Reference: https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=160737

giddie commented on 2015-06-17 10:56

It should be an array, like this:

arch=('i686' 'x86_64' 'armv6h')

x33a commented on 2015-06-17 10:54

Thanks guys for the explanation. So, would it be fine if I put armv6h in the PKGBUILD, since Arch doesn't officially support anything other than i686 and x86_64?

giddie commented on 2015-06-17 10:52

The arch field doesn't describe the code; it describes the *package*. Once the package is built, it will declare "arch=any", but that's not the case: it contains a compiled binary, which ties it to a specific architecture.

If I understand correctly, makepkg will choose the build arch from the list in the PKGBUILD, and that arch will be used for the package metadata. Using "any" in the PKGBUILD means that the package will be marked as suitable for "any", which is misleading.