On Wed, 2009-09-02 at 10:37 +0200, Joerg Barfurth wrote: > > Wrt ConsoleKit: I share the concerns that it isn't entirely clear which > DBus service should become the single, authoritative service to provide > system reboot/shutdown (and suspend, etc) services. These interfaces > look a bit out of place on ConsoleKit. Hi Joerg,
I think ConsokeKit provides only one DBus service daemon (It's a privileged daemon) which is used to check for the solaris.system.shutdown authorization. We can extend this service daemon to export a few DBus methods to support fast reboot. For example, ConsoleKit DBus service daemon currently provides 2 DBus methods, Stop and Restart, to shutdown and reboot the system. We can add 2 new DBus methods, FastRestart and ColdRestart, to support fast reboot and reboot to prom. I do not understand what you mean by "These interfaces look a bit out of place on ConsoleKit"? Regards, Jedy > > The only reasons I can see for them being there is > > - ConsoleKit is the place where it is known that a user is 'on the > console', i.e. that notion can be more clearly and flexibly expressed by > combining the notion of ConsoleKit seats with PolicyKit (or isn't that > going away in favor of 'polkit' nowadays?) rules than by using "logged > in on '/dev/console'". (How does /dev/console ownership translate in > times of VTs?) > > This would make these interfaces look misplaced in Solaris, as we are > not using PolicyKit/polkit for these things (yet?). And it would > indicate that ConsoleKit is in the game for checking authorization, but > does not imply that it is the proper place to implement the > functionality (and all the boot knobs - fast vs. bios, change of BE, etc). > > - GDM needs them and is based on ConsoleKit. That would make this mere > convenience. GDM could easily make use of another service. > > It would be good to have a longer term architectural vision here, as > that would determine how much of this should be exposed by ConsoleKit. > And I don't know how much platform-specific interface would be > acceptable for ConsoleKit. > > > BTW: Is there any interaction between the gdm user and the 'Console > User' status? The gdm user probably should never be considered the > console owner, even if a greeter is running on the console. I hope that > is the case .... > > - J?rg > >
