Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2020 21:30:47 +0000 From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: doc@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 243380] atrun(8) man page does not reflect cron.d change Message-ID: <bug-243380-9@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D243380 Bug ID: 243380 Summary: atrun(8) man page does not reflect cron.d change Product: Documentation Version: Latest Hardware: Any OS: Any Status: New Severity: Affects Many People Priority: --- Component: Manual Pages Assignee: bugs@FreeBSD.org Reporter: andrew.daugherity@gmail.com CC: doc@FreeBSD.org I was upgrading a system from 11.2 to 12.1, and freebsd-update presented me with a diff removing the /usr/libexec/atrun line from /etc/crontab. I wasn= 't sure whether to accept this change, so I RTFM and see that atrun(8) still s= ays: =3D=3D=3D=3D The system crontab(5) file /etc/crontab must contain the line */5 * * * * root /usr/libexec/atrun so atrun is invoked every five minutes. =3D=3D=3D=3D This makes removing the line seem like an incorrect change; however, I look= ed through the svn history of the crontab file and see that r318443 removed th= is line and put it in /etc/cron.d/at instead. The man page should be updated to reflect this, but I don't know what the b= est wording is. Perhaps something like "The system crontab(5) segment /etc/cron.d/at must contain the line"? Additionally, crontab(5) does not mention cron.d at all. Would merging the "Jobs in /etc/cron.d/" and "EXAMPLE OF A JOB IN /etc/cron.d/job" sections of cronie's man page [1] be appropriate? It's clearly derived from the same V= ixie cron man page and is ISC-licensed. [1] https://github.com/cronie-crond/cronie/blob/master/man/crontab.5 --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bug-243380-9>