[systemd-devel] Standardizing names for graphical session units

[Jan Alexander Steffens]

On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 10:51 AM Colin Guthrie <gmane at colin.guthr.ie> wrote:

> Martin Pitt wrote on 04/07/16 23:08:
> >> > 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?
>
> Not commenting on the general approach (which I did read and broadly
> agree with without giving it too much thought!), but could you use
> PartOf= here to make the target approach work? It might be more hacky as
> each user .service would have to declare themselves to be PartOf the
> corresponding .target. This does mean that if the target is stopped, the
> units are stopped too.
>
> I'm not sure how this would work regarding things like g-s-d which you
> want in multiple DEs.. perhaps the gnome.target would have to be split
> up into gnome-base.target and gnome.target to allow for this use case?
> Or perhaps g-s-d could just become bus activated and not need any direct
> starting?
>

How about a top-level, generic graphical.target that defines no
dependencies itself, but is Required by anything graphical. Then stopping
graphical.target would terminate the desktop, no matter which environment
was set up.

I was thinking of a direct Requires on all units, but maybe transitive
Requires via intermediate targets would be useful, too.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/attachments/20160706/fdb83219/attachment.html>