On Mon, 2007-04-02 at 20:09 -0400, Havoc Pennington wrote:
Richard Hughes wrote:
And also provides a method for applications to register a callback for,
something like:
Register(void)
Just a signal should be fine, no? (if the idea is to signal on logout)
No, we need to provide a way
On Tue, Apr 03, 2007 at 09:07:13AM +0100, Richard Hughes wrote:
On Mon, 2007-04-02 at 20:09 -0400, Havoc Pennington wrote:
Richard Hughes wrote:
And also provides a method for applications to register a callback
for, something like:
Register(void)
Just a signal should be fine,
On 4/3/07, Oswald Buddenhagen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Apr 03, 2007 at 09:07:13AM +0100, Richard Hughes wrote:
No, we need to provide a way for clients to delay (think to save a
file) or to cancel the shutdown (say encoding a file),
although the latter use case can be dealt with
On Tue, Apr 03, 2007 at 12:04:43PM +0200, Patryk Zawadzki wrote:
On 4/3/07, Oswald Buddenhagen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Apr 03, 2007 at 09:07:13AM +0100, Richard Hughes wrote:
No, we need to provide a way for clients to delay (think to save a
file) or to cancel the shutdown (say
On Tue, 2007-04-03 at 12:04 +0200, Patryk Zawadzki wrote:
What about system-level apps that need to inhibit (think daemons)?
They have no session daemon to register to.
Agree, I'm just throwing some ideas into the air.
System-level locking is still needed and it's more suited as it does
On 4/3/07, Oswald Buddenhagen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Apr 03, 2007 at 12:04:43PM +0200, Patryk Zawadzki wrote:
What about system-level apps that need to inhibit (think daemons)?
They have no session daemon to register to.
but a system daemon, obviously. i don't see a difference.
If
Hi Josef,
Le jeudi 29 mars 2007, à 09:50, Josef Spillner a écrit :
Am Mittwoch, 28. März 2007 21:55 schrieb Vincent Untz:
Specifications being written, and that are not endorsed yet:
ghns spec, and all the specs that I forgot to mention (I'm lazy ;-))
GHNS is fortunately going strong
William Jon McCann wrote:
But gdm can never provide an interface on the D-Bus session bus in a
desktop session. And it shouldn't - gdm is highly sensitive code so we
want as few attack vectors as possible. However, gdm can (and already
does) provide a mechanism that e.g. gnome-session (which
On Tue, 2007-04-03 at 12:04 +0200, Patryk Zawadzki wrote:
What about system-level apps that need to inhibit (think daemons)?
They have no session daemon to register to.
System-level locking is still needed and it's more suited as it does
not require you to register any foobar callbacks that
