I thought it was strange that ConsoleKit would have reboot given that HAL service already has reboot, halt, and suspend.
Thanks Margot Jedy Wang wrote: > 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 >> >> >> > > >
