David Zeuthen david at
Thu Mar 29 15:21:32 PDT 2007

On Fri, 2007-03-30 at 00:03 +0200, Holger Macht wrote:
> On Thu 29. Mar - 22:58:10, Richard Hughes wrote:
> > On Thu, 2007-03-29 at 23:52 +0200, Holger Macht wrote:
> > > 
> > > I don't why it's only me seeing the problem here? You want to have
> > > Shutdown() and Reboot() on _every_ system, but not mandatory the other
> > > methods. If you don't have a pm application providing "the other"
> > > methods,
> > > you need to implement them somewhere else to meet the spec's
> > > requirements. And that seems wrong to me. If you need to implement
> > > them a
> > > second time, you could do it right at the one place where you need
> > > them
> > > compulsory, the desktop base. You won't need a pm app then.
> > 
> > I don't think you need to define the interface in the desktop
> > base. I think saying "at least something will provide" is good
> > enough; for instance:
> > 
> > XFCE can just build the interface into the base session layer with a
> > thin wrapper around HAL
> > GNOME can use gnome-power-manager
> > KDE can use kpowersaved or guidance-power-manager
> I'm talking about a GNOME or KDE _without_ gnome-power-manager or
> kpowersave.

Am not really sure where we disagree. I mean, GNOME ships with
gnome-power-manager in the release set, so GNOME is good out of the box.
I think if KDE doesn't ship with kpowersave (or something else), you
want to tell the KDE people to at least provide _something_? Ditto for
other desktop environments. The desktop in question may choose to punt
this to the distribution.

I'm just not sure what you are suggesting we should do? I mean, I'm in
violent agreement that all desktops should provide the o.fd.PM dbus
session interface but I don't see how we can make them do that...


More information about the xdg mailing list