Hi all,
Please see my comments in line.
On Tue, 2009-09-08 at 18:56 -0500, Brian Cameron wrote:
> Note that I changed the IAM file for this case to "waiting need spec"
> and I increased the timeout to 09/15/2009.
>
> In what timeframe does the project team plan to provide an updated
> one-pager to describe how they plan to address the issues raised in
> the discussion so far?
I just sent a mail to ConsoleKit community about how to extend it to
make it support fast reboot. I plan to update the proposal when we have
a clear solution.
>
> Issues raised in discussion that should be addressed by an updated
> onepager include:
>
> 1) Darren Moffat says that the proposed solution requires that a
> temporary property needs to be created in an SMF service and that
> requires a different (considerably more powerful) authorisation than
> the one to reboot. He points out that the solution to this problem
> is likely outside of the scope of this case, so that the project
> team probably needs to work with the team that introduced the
> fast reboot functionality to determine the proper solution for
> this before moving forward.
>
> For reference, CR #6878412 was filed about this issue.
Yes, the temporary smf property is beyond my control but I will discuss
this with Sherry.
>
> 2) There has been some discussion about whether ConsoleKit is the
> correct interface to use for supporting shut down and reboot on
> Solaris. For example, Joerg Barfurth had this comment:
>
> > ConsoleKit manages Seats and Sessions and their association to
> > devices and X servers. Interfaces for system power control are
> > really something different and would really be better offered by a
> > separate power management service.
>
> So, I think it would be helpful to clarify the pros and cons of
> the various options (e.g. using HAL, using ConsoleKit, using a
> new separate power management service), and explain why whatever
> is decided to be the solution is the best approach.
The basic idea is to follow the community. Now that the community
implement reboot/shutdown in HAL/ConsoleKit, I think it's reasonable to
also implement fast reboot in one of them. And because HAL is
deprecated, ConsoleKit is a better choice. As for a separate power
management service, currently there is devicekit-power (It will replace
the power management part in HAL) but
1) community does not implement reboot/shutdown in it
2) it has not been integrated into Solaris yet.
We also definitely do not want to maintain a private such service. So
according to above reasons, ConsoleKit is chosen.
>
> Note that if it is necessary to enhance ConsoleKit interfaces to
> support this feature, that any changed ConsoleKit interfaces will
> also need to be ARC'ed. Perhaps any such needed changes to the
> ConsoleKit specification could be included as a part of this case?
>
> Also, note that although ConsoleKit is currently targeting build 128,
> that there is some risk that ConsoleKit might slip if the
> requirements set in the ConsoleKit ARC case are not finished (e.g.
> MultiSeat support) in time for planned integration in build 128.
> While I am hopeful that the ConsoleKit integration will not slip, I
> recommend that the project team have a Plan B if it is necessary to
> avoid slippage if the ConsoleKit project slips.
I have considered this problem. I will not integrate my case before
ConsoleKit's integration.
Regards,
Jedy
>
> Brian
