[systemd-devel] Standardizing names for graphical session units

[Martin Pitt]

Hello Jóhann,

Jóhann B. Guðmundsson [2016-07-04 20:53 +0000]:
> Shipping an predefined desktop units arguably does not belong upstream since
> it's just catering to one ( desktop ) out of three (
> embedded/server/desktop) target user base.

Right, embedded/server would never start this new unit. But we also
ship a graphical.target on the system side, even though that doesn't
apply to servers either. This is just an extra two-line unit.

Also, if that is really an issue, we do not *need* to ship an actual
unit file for that -- we merely need to define what its name is, so
that we can start shipping such units in upstream desktop projects.

> It might result in other two target user base having to patch things
> out in the environment.

What would you need to patch out? Having an extra unused unit on them
isn't going to cause any harm, other than the extra microsecond to
read the unit file (but we already parse plenty).

> Why would you call it graphical-<$DE>.slice as opposed to simply <$DE>.slice
> which is part of the <$DE>.target and graphical target is link to that
> <$DE>.target  ( if shipped upstream it needs to be generic enough to cater
> whatever is out there right )

target units don't work well as they don't stop their dependencies on
stop, as I explained -- unless there's a trick which I'm missing?

If you just make it a top-level slice like "gnome.slice", then you
don't have a parent like "graphical.slice" any more which you can
refer to in units. We certainly don't want to use the root slice
(-.slice) as we don't want to kill *all* the user services on
graphical logout.

Thanks,

Martin

-- 
Martin Pitt                        | http://www.piware.de
Ubuntu Developer (www.ubuntu.com)  | Debian Developer  (www.debian.org)