Simon and Matthias, Thanks for this and sorry for the slow reply.
On Tue, Jul 14, 2026 at 12:29:05PM +0200, Matthias Geiger wrote: > > The way I had originally anticipated that this would work, when I > > introduced dbus-user-session, is that dbus-user-session could have > > alternative dependencies on anything that will arrange for the desired > > semantics to exist, so perhaps like this: > > > > Depends: > > libpam-systemd | dbus-openrc-user-session | > > dbus-turnstile-user-session | runit-dbus-user-session, > > ... Do you mind the workload of maintaining that in dbus? > > The other way this could potentially work would be for these other > > implementations of a "user bus" to have a Provides for dbus-session-bus > > and dbus-user-session, meaning that systemd users would have > > dbus-user-session + libpam-systemd, but e.g. runit users would only have > > runit-dbus-user-session (and *not* dbus-user-session). However, that > > would mean that these other packages would need to duplicate what > > /etc/X11/Xsession.d/20dbus_xdg-runtime does, This appears to be less work for you? Whilst there may be some duplication, it also allows individual implementations to adapt the Xsession.d hook to their specific requirements. I am leaning towards this as a preferable route, but am open to persuasion otherwise. Best wishes Mark _______________________________________________ Pkg-utopia-maintainers mailing list [email protected] https://alioth-lists.debian.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-utopia-maintainers
