On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 10:51 AM Colin Guthrie <gm...@colin.guthr.ie> wrote:
> Martin Pitt wrote on 04/07/16 23:08: > >> > Why would you call it graphical-<$DE>.slice as opposed to simply > <$DE>.slice > >> > which is part of the <$DE>.target and graphical target is link to that > >> > <$DE>.target ( if shipped upstream it needs to be generic enough to > cater > >> > whatever is out there right ) > > target units don't work well as they don't stop their dependencies on > > stop, as I explained -- unless there's a trick which I'm missing? > > Not commenting on the general approach (which I did read and broadly > agree with without giving it too much thought!), but could you use > PartOf= here to make the target approach work? It might be more hacky as > each user .service would have to declare themselves to be PartOf the > corresponding .target. This does mean that if the target is stopped, the > units are stopped too. > > I'm not sure how this would work regarding things like g-s-d which you > want in multiple DEs.. perhaps the gnome.target would have to be split > up into gnome-base.target and gnome.target to allow for this use case? > Or perhaps g-s-d could just become bus activated and not need any direct > starting? > How about a top-level, generic graphical.target that defines no dependencies itself, but is Required by anything graphical. Then stopping graphical.target would terminate the desktop, no matter which environment was set up. I was thinking of a direct Requires on all units, but maybe transitive Requires via intermediate targets would be useful, too.
_______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel