expanding the inhibit spec

Ryan Lortie desrt at desrt.ca
Wed Jan 8 06:39:54 PST 2014


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).


More information about the xdg mailing list