Description of problem: On the 16th, I updated to cronie-1.3-1.fc11.x86_64. Today I rebooted. The @reboot jobs did not start. The cron log says: Jun 17 14:17:00 slayer crond[2143]: (CRON) INFO (@reboot jobs will be run at computer's startup.) Since the computer just started, cronie does not appear to be determining "computer startup" properly. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): cronie-1.3-1.fc11.x86_64 How reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce: 1.update to cronie-1.3-1.fc11.x86_64 2.Have @reboot jobs in your crontabs 3.reboot Actual results: @reboot jobs don't run Expected results: @reboot jobs run Additional info: Verified the SELINUX in permissive doesn't change anything.
The change appears to have been brought about by this commit: https://fedorahosted.org/cronie/changeset/2abb46f60f496e2725333a86ade0f3913981761d
And it was fixed in git by https://fedorahosted.org/cronie/changeset/8d6855a32762dab036a28364a6e714b47c6f06c0 I'll add it into updates. Thank you for report.
cronie-1.3-2.fc11 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 11. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/cronie-1.3-2.fc11
Confirmed that cronie-1.3-2.fc11 corrects the problem. Closing.
cronie-1.3-2.fc11 has been pushed to the Fedora 11 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
Why this update started to require anacron?
*** Bug 508432 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Because it needs it to run cron.daily, cron.weekly, and cron.monthly jobs.
Sorry, but I don't get it. Where is the connection between cron.daily, cron.weekly, and cron.monthly and @reboot jobs? I would really prefer if there was no dependency on anacron. I really do not want cron jobs to start at a random time after I power my system on. Up until now it was a simple "rpm -e anacron" and everything was perfect.
But it was not at all perfect for the default use-case. @reboot is not related to the weekly, etc. jobs I just answered the comment 6. The duplicate notation in comment 7 is wrong though I've mistaked the bug number with another bug.