[PATCH] Revert 5ce97e6f22fd25279793fbc75211d2e86413ae73 from ConsoleKit

[Danny Kukawka]

On Donnerstag, 31. Januar 2008, William Jon McCann wrote:
>  On Jan 31, 2008 1:56 AM, Michael Biebl <mbiebl at gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
> > - Do one task and do it right, as the Unix saying goes.
>
> I think one can argue that moving restart/shutdown functionality from
> GDM/HAL to ConsoleKit is actually doing just this.

Don't put GDM and HAL together. And no, it's not just doing this. It would 
move functionality (in case of HAL to CK) into a tool that has nothing to do 
with this task. If you want to (re)move the functionality from GDM: call HAL 
to do the shutdown/reboot.

> > - Avoids complexity in CK. (CK is a long running daemon, the daemon I
> > described above doesn't need to and can self terminate after a
> > timeout).
>
> No more complex than anything else in ConsoleKit.  Also removing this
> complexity from GDM and HAL arguably does have some benefit.

And which benefit? Especially in case of move stuff from HAL to CK? I, and I 
assume I'm not the only one, see no reasonable arguments to do so.

> > - This means less memory usage.
>
> Prove it.  Also you'll need to start a new service in order to reboot
> - that seems risky.  In some cases you'll have two daemons instead of
> one.  You'll also need access to the logging functionality in
> ConsoleKit.

This all is what HAL already do, no need for a new daemon and also not for 
move this to CK!

> > - CK remains true to its mission, which is to provide information
> > about users, sessions and seats.
>
> That is a part of the mission.  In fact, you may notice here that we
> haven't even started providing information about users.  I was
> wondering why I've never been called out on that.

This is something different. You try to move stuff from HAL to CK without any 
previous discussion and change the 'mission' of CK (as it is seen at least by 
4 different people (from 4 different distros) on the list), this is not about 
something, that isn't implemented yet.

> > - It's easier to grasp, what component does what. The design is
> > clearer (subjective)
>
> org.freedesktop.ConsoleKit.System.Restart seems pretty clear to me.  I
> think we really do want this functionality pretty low in the stack.
> There is clearly some affinity to both the init system and the wtmp
> logging system.  Relying on an init system providing a D-Bus interface
> is problematic for a few reasons.

But nobody expects that this is part of CK. HAL is (IMO) much lower in stack 
and has an already existing interface (including policies) for this. It is 
total PITA to move this now to CK.

Danny