Can anyone suggest the proper mail list to ask questions regarding the 'at' batch commands? 'at' is such a short, common word that I'm having a hard time searching to find the proper group to ask a user-type question.
Thanks for your help and advice.
-Kevin
Kevin Zembower Internet Services Group manager Center for Communication Programs Bloomberg School of Public Health Johns Hopkins University 111 Market Place, Suite 310 Baltimore, Maryland 21202 410-659-6139
Can anyone suggest the proper mail list to ask questions regarding the 'at' batch commands?
I am not sure if there is any GNU version of `at' yet. You should be able to use whatever package commands your system uses to discover what package it belongs to, and then the package information should tell where it came from. For instance, on my Red Hat system, rpm -qli gives a bunch of information about it. (It seems RH itself might have written it; not sure.)
Karl, thanks for your suggestion. On my Debian system, 'at' seems to be its own package: amanda@cn2:~$ aptitude show at Package: at State: installed Automatically installed: no Version: 3.1.8-11 Priority: important Section: admin Maintainer: Ryan Murray <rmur...@debian.org> Uncompressed Size: 209k Depends: libc6 (>= 2.2.4-4), mail-transport-agent Description: Delayed job execution and batch processing At and batch read shell commands from standard input storing them as a job to be scheduled for execution in the future.
Use at to run the job at a specified time batch to run the job when system load levels permit
amanda@cn2:~$
I guess my next step is to write to the package maintainer or author, even though I try to avoid writing to an individual to ask questions like this.
-----Original Message----- From: Karl Berry [mailto:k...@freefriends.org] Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2006 6:03 PM To: Zembower, Kevin
Cc: help-gnu-ut...@gnu.org Subject: Re: Proper list for 'at' command questions?
Can anyone suggest the proper mail list to ask questions regarding the 'at' batch commands?
I am not sure if there is any GNU version of `at' yet. You should be able to use whatever package commands your system uses to discover what package it belongs to, and then the package information should tell where it came from. For instance, on my Red Hat system, rpm -qli gives a bunch of information about it. (It seems RH itself might have written it; not sure.)
> Can anyone suggest the proper mail list to ask questions regarding the > 'at' batch commands?
> I am not sure if there is any GNU version of `at' yet. You should
I'm not actually arguing your points. I'm merely supplying additional info. HTH. This is Debian stable/Sarge:
(0) heretic /home/keeling_ cd /usr/share/doc/at (0) heretic /usr/share/doc/at_ less copyright
-------------------------------------- This package was debianized by its author Thomas Koenig <i...@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de>, taken over and re-packaged first by Martin Schulze <j...@debian.org> and then by Siggy Brentrup <b...@winnegan.de>, and then taken over by Ryan Murray <rmur...@debian.org>.
This may be considered the experimental upstream source, and since there doesn't seem to be any other upstream source, the only upstream source.
Copyright: 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997 (c) Thomas Koenig 1993 (c) David Parsons
This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; version 2 dated June, 1991.
(etc.). --------------------------------------
So, it's Gnu.
> able to use whatever package commands your system uses to discover what > package it belongs to, and then the package information should tell > where it came from. For instance, on my Red Hat system, rpm -qli > gives a bunch of information about it. (It seems RH itself might have > written it; not sure.)
On Debian-ish systems:
(0) heretic /home/keeling_ aptitude show at
-------------------------------------- Package: at State: installed Automatically installed: no Version: 3.1.8-11 Priority: important Section: admin Maintainer: Ryan Murray <rmur...@debian.org> Uncompressed Size: 209k Depends: libc6 (>= 2.2.4-4), mail-transport-agent Description: Delayed job execution and batch processing At and batch read shell commands from standard input storing them as a job to be scheduled for execution in the future.
Use at to run the job at a specified time batch to run the job when system load levels permit --------------------------------------
And for the OP:
xman -notopbox -bothshown &
results in a point and click interface to the manpages. Enjoy. :-)
This may be considered the experimental upstream source, and since there doesn't seem to be any other upstream source, the only upstream source.
Meaning, the Debian package is the "upstream" source? And Ryan Murray is the current maintainer?
it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; version 2 dated June, 1991.
(etc.). --------------------------------------
So, it's Gnu.
By "GNU", I meant a package officially dubbed as part of the GNU system. Of course there is a lot of software released under the GPL which are not GNU packages, and I believe this is one of them.
In any case, thanks for the specific info, I am glad to know :).
> By "GNU", I meant a package officially dubbed as part of the GNU system. > Of course there is a lot of software released under the GPL which are > not GNU packages, and I believe this is one of them.
Sorry for the confusion. Anything licenced under the GPL (for me) is Gnu. "at" is GPL licenced software (as far as I can tell).
btw, I think "officially dubbed as part of the GNU system" is a red herring. Whether it's GPL is what counts (released under the conditions of the Gnu Public Licence). HTH.
"s. keeling" <keel...@spots.ab.ca> wrote: > Anything licenced under the GPL (for me) is Gnu.
If the license is what matters to you, then you can talk generally about "GPL software" without the confusion that would result from saying "GNU software", when that's not really what you mean.
> btw, I think "officially dubbed as part of the GNU system" is a red > herring. Whether it's GPL is what counts (released under the > conditions of the Gnu Public Licence). HTH.
For some purposes, that's true. For others - such as finding the proper list for questions :) - the license is more or less irrelevant. Since anyone can apply the GPL to their own work, knowing that a program is under the GPL doesn't tell you anything about who maintains it.