org.freedesktop.PowerManagement version 0.2
William Jon McCann
mccann at jhu.edu
Mon Apr 2 15:44:39 PDT 2007
On 4/2/07, David Zeuthen <david at fubar.dk> wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-04-02 at 23:17 +0100, Richard Hughes wrote:
> > On Mon, 2007-04-02 at 18:10 -0400, David Zeuthen wrote:
> > > I agree, and I'd even say that gpm and others shouldn't
> > Shouldn't or should?
> > > start providing the SM interface as it may be a bit more complicated
> > > than the proposed Shutdown()/Reboot()/Logout() methods (e.g. Lubos
> > > Lunak's comments earlier today).
> ... because of the reasons above.
> > Jon, what have you spec'ed out so far with GDM?
> But gdm can never provide an interface on the D-Bus session bus in a
> desktop session. And it shouldn't - gdm is highly sensitive code so we
> want as few attack vectors as possible. However, gdm can (and already
> does) provide a mechanism that e.g. gnome-session (which should provide
> org.fd.SessionManagement) can use. Hope this clarifies.
Right. The interface that Dan and I were suggesting would be on the
system bus and essentially just a nicer replacement for the current
socket protocol. And... offtopic for this thread - sorry.
More information about the xdg