expanding the inhibit spec

[Ryan Lortie]

hi,

On Wed, Jan 8, 2014, at 4:13, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> I certainly welcome standardization efforts for doing the
> session-specific inhibitors, but I really don't buy the ideas of
> stacking this on top of the lower level stuff.
> 
> If the lower level stuff is missing features, we can certainly add those
> to the lower level bits...

The main issue of everything you've said is that it assumes that
everyone will use logind.  That's your opinion about how the world
should work, but I don't think we're quite there yet.

If logind could put a service on the session bus which implemented a
common API (ie: not one that was part of the org.freedesktop.login1 API)
for this then I'd already be much happier.  I really think the session
bus part is necessary because other people implementing this API are
much more likely to be in a position to do it as a session service than
as a system service.

Even that would not make me completely happy, however, because I
couldn't handle all of my inhibit needs there (unless you were willing
to expand the list of things you support inhibiting, for informational
purposes for the session to see).

Cheers