On mer, 2009-04-29 at 08:55 +0200, Michael Biebl wrote: > > > > The I just fail to see why libpam-ck-connector from oustide of X creates > > the XDG_SESSION_COOKIE. What is it used for? > > Trying to answer both of your questions: > It's indeed questionable, what a CK session on the console is good for.
In fact I meant, why is the XDG_SESSION_COOKIE used for. Not why a CK session on the console is good for. I have no problem with the latter (it could be very useful to have all the siny desktop stuff from the console too, for example). I thought XDG_SESSION_COOKIE was just used to determine that a X11/CK session was running. > So a first step to "avoid" this kind of problem, is indeed, to make the > libpam_ck_connector Recommends a Suggests. It's obviously not a real fix. Yeah, I'm not fan of that, because there might be perfectly legitimate reasons to have the pam module, and I don't think it should break working setup. > > The only other reason I can think of, why libpam_ck_connector might be useful, > is if you setup a custom pam configuration without nox11 for a login manager > that does neither support Xsession.d nor talk to CK directly. Hmhm, that might be a bit pervert, no? > > > >> 2.) login on the console (covered by libpam_ck_connector) > > > > Yes (but afaict we don't need XDG_SESSION_COOKIE) > > See below > > > Basically, I think I'd be fine with libpam-ck-connector not using > > XDG_SESSION_COOKIE when it's in console mode (nox11) because it doesn't > > really make sense. > > I think we can't get rid of the XDG_SESSION_COOKIE variable, as this is > necessary to correctly track/assign a session to a user. (I'll verify that > though) I wasn't aware of that :) I just thought it was a was to know if there was an X11/XDG session currently running. The name may not be wisely chosen then :) > > That's why I proposed the idea of an additional/separate env var, that will > only > be set for console logins, so we can easily differentiate X11 from console > logins in Xsession.d/90consolekit. That could be a good idea. In fact, what we want (correct me if I'm wrong) is a way, in 90consolekit, to know if we should override the currently running CK session or not. If there's no session, fine, run inconditionnaly, but if there's already a CK session there might be multiple cases (CK-aware DM, CK-pam + DM, CK-pam + console), in some cases the CK-session should be kept, in some other it should be overriden. Am I correct? Cheers, -- Yves-Alexis -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org