[blfs-dev] consolekit
I've been looking at ConsoleKit because it is giving me problems. I don't use pam, so I built with: ./configure --prefix=/usr\ --sysconfdir=/etc\ --localstatedir=/var \ --libexecdir=/usr/lib/ConsoleKit \ --enable-udev-acl We have a statement in the book: See /usr/share/doc/ConsoleKit/spec/ConsoleKit.html for more configuration. That file is not built or installed unless the option --enable-docbook-docs is used in the configure. Also, this appears to be API documentation and does not seem to help with configuration. In any case, I'm having a problem with xfce startup. I'm using a simple startxfce4 command, but after the screen starts, there is a delay with the power manager for about 20 seconds. I don't really need the power manager because there is no battery. It's a wired only system. In any case, thee is a log entry: Aug 7 14:22:12 blfs dbus[1527]: [system] Successfully activated service 'org.freedesktop.PolicyKit1' Aug 7 14:22:12 blfs dbus[1527]: [system] Activating service name='org.freedesktop.UPower' (using servicehelper) Aug 7 14:22:12 blfs dbus[1527]: [system] Successfully activated service 'org.freedesktop.UPower' Aug 7 14:22:13 blfs dbus[1527]: [system] Activating service name='org.freedesktop.ConsoleKit' (using servicehelper) Aug 7 14:22:38 blfs dbus[1527]: [system] Failed to activate service 'org.freedesktop.ConsoleKit': timed out Looking at /etc/dbus-1/system.d/ConsoleKit.conf, I see: !-- Only root can own the service -- policy user=root allow own=org.freedesktop.ConsoleKit/ !-- Allow all methods on interfaces -- allow send_destination=org.freedesktop.ConsoleKit/ /policy but org.freedesktop.UPower.conf says the same thing about UPower. Does anyone have suggestions about how to avoid the ConsoleKit dbus timeout? -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-dev] consolekit
Armin K. wrote: On 08/07/2013 10:25 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote: I've been looking at ConsoleKit because it is giving me problems. I don't use pam, so I built with: ./configure --prefix=/usr\ --sysconfdir=/etc\ --localstatedir=/var \ --libexecdir=/usr/lib/ConsoleKit \ --enable-udev-acl We have a statement in the book: See /usr/share/doc/ConsoleKit/spec/ConsoleKit.html for more configuration. That file is not built or installed unless the option --enable-docbook-docs is used in the configure. Also, this appears to be API documentation and does not seem to help with configuration. In any case, I'm having a problem with xfce startup. I'm using a simple startxfce4 command, but after the screen starts, there is a delay with the power manager for about 20 seconds. I don't really need the power manager because there is no battery. It's a wired only system. In any case, thee is a log entry: Aug 7 14:22:12 blfs dbus[1527]: [system] Successfully activated service 'org.freedesktop.PolicyKit1' Aug 7 14:22:12 blfs dbus[1527]: [system] Activating service name='org.freedesktop.UPower' (using servicehelper) Aug 7 14:22:12 blfs dbus[1527]: [system] Successfully activated service 'org.freedesktop.UPower' Aug 7 14:22:13 blfs dbus[1527]: [system] Activating service name='org.freedesktop.ConsoleKit' (using servicehelper) Aug 7 14:22:38 blfs dbus[1527]: [system] Failed to activate service 'org.freedesktop.ConsoleKit': timed out Looking at /etc/dbus-1/system.d/ConsoleKit.conf, I see: !-- Only root can own the service -- policy user=root allow own=org.freedesktop.ConsoleKit/ !-- Allow all methods on interfaces -- allow send_destination=org.freedesktop.ConsoleKit/ /policy but org.freedesktop.UPower.conf says the same thing about UPower. Does anyone have suggestions about how to avoid the ConsoleKit dbus timeout? -- Bruce Yes, use PAM module to auto start console-kit-daemon at user login. Other than that, I don't think it's possible without display manager (like GDM, KDM, XDM, LightDM). It's normal. Just as I send a message like this, I figure it out. I needed to 'startxfce4 --with-ck-launch' -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-dev] ConsoleKit
Wayne Blaszczyk wrote: I've been using (pure (no bootscripts)) systemd for the past 4 months when I upgraded to LFS 7.2, and I'm quite happy with it. I don't see what all the negative fuss with it was all about. We try to explain what is going on with the boot process. Systemd makes it opaque. See http://www.faqs.org/docs/artu/ch01s06.html It especially violates the first rule: Make each program do one thing well. To do a new job, build afresh rather than complicate old programs by adding new features. The reason why I tried it out in the first place was due to three reasons. The fact that ConsoleKit was being deprecated, I didn't like the heavy customization of udev, What customization? We don't modify any code, just bypass autotools. and as of Gnome 3.8, I've heard that it will be a hard dependency. There are a lot of people dropping Gnome. I guess that will accelerate. I must also say, that this has been the most stable system yet since the introduction of Gnome 3.0. I had issues with the occasional desktop freeze, but none since this latest build. I don't see why systemd cannot be included in BLFS as it is just another option. Do you want to write it? -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-dev] ConsoleKit
On 01/21/2013 07:06 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote: Wayne Blaszczyk wrote: I've been using (pure (no bootscripts)) systemd for the past 4 months when I upgraded to LFS 7.2, and I'm quite happy with it. I don't see what all the negative fuss with it was all about. We try to explain what is going on with the boot process. Systemd makes it opaque. See http://www.faqs.org/docs/artu/ch01s06.html It especially violates the first rule: Make each program do one thing well. To do a new job, build afresh rather than complicate old programs by adding new features. The reason why I tried it out in the first place was due to three reasons. The fact that ConsoleKit was being deprecated, I didn't like the heavy customization of udev, What customization? We don't modify any code, just bypass autotools. and as of Gnome 3.8, I've heard that it will be a hard dependency. There are a lot of people dropping Gnome. I guess that will accelerate. I must also say, that this has been the most stable system yet since the introduction of Gnome 3.0. I had issues with the occasional desktop freeze, but none since this latest build. I don't see why systemd cannot be included in BLFS as it is just another option. Do you want to write it? -- Bruce I can write and maintain it, but it will also require instructions to remove Udev extracted from systemd. Also, If we want to offer users to choose systemd as default, we will also need to provide instructions to completely remove sysvinit stuff installed by LFS. That would mean that we would also need Systemd Units apart from Bootscript on several packages' pages. Would you accept such package in BLFS? -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-dev] ConsoleKit
Armin K. wrote: On 01/21/2013 07:06 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote: Wayne Blaszczyk wrote: I've been using (pure (no bootscripts)) systemd for the past 4 months when I upgraded to LFS 7.2, and I'm quite happy with it. I don't see what all the negative fuss with it was all about. We try to explain what is going on with the boot process. Systemd makes it opaque. See http://www.faqs.org/docs/artu/ch01s06.html It especially violates the first rule: Make each program do one thing well. To do a new job, build afresh rather than complicate old programs by adding new features. The reason why I tried it out in the first place was due to three reasons. The fact that ConsoleKit was being deprecated, I didn't like the heavy customization of udev, What customization? We don't modify any code, just bypass autotools. and as of Gnome 3.8, I've heard that it will be a hard dependency. There are a lot of people dropping Gnome. I guess that will accelerate. I must also say, that this has been the most stable system yet since the introduction of Gnome 3.0. I had issues with the occasional desktop freeze, but none since this latest build. I don't see why systemd cannot be included in BLFS as it is just another option. Do you want to write it? I can write and maintain it, but it will also require instructions to remove Udev extracted from systemd. Also, If we want to offer users to choose systemd as default, we will also need to provide instructions to completely remove sysvinit stuff installed by LFS. That would mean that we would also need Systemd Units apart from Bootscript on several packages' pages. Would you accept such package in BLFS? That's major surgery to both LFS and BLFS. My understanding is that all the LFS/BLFS bootscripts would have to be changed or supplemented. I personally don't want it in BLFS, but I'm not the only vote. If there is interest, I suggest either a hint or an article in the lfsblog first and then see the response to that. What is the advantage again for systemd? Binary logs? systemd has 142K lines of C source code. sysv has 10K lines of C plus about 2K lines of shell scripts (probably about half of the scripts are comments and blank lines). The major disadvantage, as I see it, is a significant amount of complexity. And I don't know what problems it is trying to solve. Another disadvantage is that you can't boot with init=/bin/bash. When you do have a boot problem, how do you fix it? I'd wait until Debian makes it the default. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-dev] ConsoleKit
On 01/21/2013 08:00 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote: Armin K. wrote: I can write and maintain it, but it will also require instructions to remove Udev extracted from systemd. Also, If we want to offer users to choose systemd as default, we will also need to provide instructions to completely remove sysvinit stuff installed by LFS. That would mean that we would also need Systemd Units apart from Bootscript on several packages' pages. Would you accept such package in BLFS? That's major surgery to both LFS and BLFS. My understanding is that all the LFS/BLFS bootscripts would have to be changed or supplemented. I personally don't want it in BLFS, but I'm not the only vote. If there is interest, I suggest either a hint or an article in the lfsblog first and then see the response to that. What is the advantage again for systemd? Binary logs? I'd name a lot advantages, but you'll, as always, say something else that you might find better, but not everyone. So, I'll just be quiet. systemd has 142K lines of C source code. sysv has 10K lines of C plus about 2K lines of shell scripts (probably about half of the scripts are comments and blank lines). We discussed this several times and I am not starting it again. The major disadvantage, as I see it, is a significant amount of complexity. And I don't know what problems it is trying to solve. Another disadvantage is that you can't boot with init=/bin/bash. When you do have a boot problem, how do you fix it? I'd wait until Debian makes it the default. -- Bruce As for Debian making it default, I don't think they will make it default in near future. Systemd is not portable, it won't run on Non-Linux (and please no Unix philosophy and software portability stuff, maintainer has every right to write his software for whatever platform he wants). Debian has kFreeBSD variant and they can't make systemd default since it doesn't run there. They would need to maintain seperate sysvinit bootscripts for kFreeBSD and systemd units for Linux variant. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-dev] ConsoleKit
On 19/01/13 21:10, Armin K. wrote: On 01/19/2013 03:48 AM, Randy McMurchy wrote: Hi all, My apologies right here at the beginning if this subject has been discussed and I missed the discussion. I am curious about BLFS' view on the obsolete . If anyone is interested in discussion, I encourage your participation. . But, it has been obsoleted by systemd-logind. I've raised a thread or two about this but every time systemd was rejected. From what I know, Ubuntu won't be switching to systemd and I think that Canonical's Martin Pitt wwas about to maintain ConsoleKit. Only maintain - not improve or such ... I've been using (pure (no bootscripts)) systemd for the past 4 months when I upgraded to LFS 7.2, and I'm quite happy with it. I don't see what all the negative fuss with it was all about. The reason why I tried it out in the first place was due to three reasons. The fact that ConsoleKit was being deprecated, I didn't like the heavy customization of udev, and as of Gnome 3.8, I've heard that it will be a hard dependency. I must also say, that this has been the most stable system yet since the introduction of Gnome 3.0. I had issues with the occasional desktop freeze, but none since this latest build. I don't see why systemd cannot be included in BLFS as it is just another option. Regards, Wayne. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-dev] ConsoleKit
On 01/19/2013 03:48 AM, Randy McMurchy wrote: Hi all, My apologies right here at the beginning if this subject has been discussed and I missed the discussion. I am curious about BLFS' view on the obsolete and deprecated package ConsoleKit. ConsoleKit is listed as a dependency for several BLFS packages, and recommended for at least one package. The issue is the package is unmaintained. We (BLFS) list ConsoleKit in the Security section of the book. It would seem to me that packages in the Security section would have a solid base behind it, and the package would be looked at closely. However, because ConsoleKit is now abandoned, deprecated, and apparently has been replaced by the systemd package (which BLFS doesn't support), it seems that this would be a security hole. I am not saying that the current BLFS situation with ConsoleKit is a security hole, I am just saying that it could turn in to one. I would like a discussion about the future of our direction toward the ConsoleKit deprecation, and the apparent move by most other distribution's move toward systemd. If anyone is interested in discussion, I encourage your participation. Well, ConsoleKit is required for every desktop. It is used by D-Bus and PolicyKit to identify local sessions and grant privileges. If your session is not registered with ConsoleKit, you will likely get Permission denied in lot of Desktop stuff like device mounting, network manager management, etc ... In short, it is used to track sessions and help D-Bus and PolicyKit to work correctly. But, it has been obsoleted by systemd-logind. I've raised a thread or two about this but every time systemd was rejected. From what I know, Ubuntu won't be switching to systemd and I think that Canonical's Martin Pitt wwas about to maintain ConsoleKit. Only maintain - not improve or such ... -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
[blfs-dev] ConsoleKit
Hi all, My apologies right here at the beginning if this subject has been discussed and I missed the discussion. I am curious about BLFS' view on the obsolete and deprecated package ConsoleKit. ConsoleKit is listed as a dependency for several BLFS packages, and recommended for at least one package. The issue is the package is unmaintained. We (BLFS) list ConsoleKit in the Security section of the book. It would seem to me that packages in the Security section would have a solid base behind it, and the package would be looked at closely. However, because ConsoleKit is now abandoned, deprecated, and apparently has been replaced by the systemd package (which BLFS doesn't support), it seems that this would be a security hole. I am not saying that the current BLFS situation with ConsoleKit is a security hole, I am just saying that it could turn in to one. I would like a discussion about the future of our direction toward the ConsoleKit deprecation, and the apparent move by most other distribution's move toward systemd. If anyone is interested in discussion, I encourage your participation. -- Randy rmlscsi: [bogomips 1003.23] [GNU ld version 2.16.1] [gcc (GCC) 4.0.3] [GNU C Library stable release version 2.3.6] [Linux 2.6.14.3 i686] 20:35:00 up 44 days, 6:34, 1 user, load average: 0.78, 0.26, 0.08 -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-dev] ConsoleKit
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 6:48 PM, Randy McMurchy ra...@linuxfromscratch.org wrote: g if this subject has been discussed and I missed the discussion. I am curious about BLFS' view on the obsolete and deprecated package ConsoleKit. ConsoleKit is listed as a dependency for several BLFS packages, and recommended for at least one package. The issue is the package is unmaintained. Not a consolekit user here, so apologies if I'm completely wrong. If it has been depreciated and unmaintained, Ideally we would want packages to target it's replacement. Looks like systemd-loginctl is it's replacement. http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/ConsoleKit. (and currently we do not use systemd in the book). Based on that, I'd recommend keeping it unless it's a maintenance burden on us, or it's no longer useful for the required packages. Just like GTK+2 replaced GTK+1, when all the packages moved over, and I imagine GTK+3 will eventually supplant GTK+2 If it's required for a package, or optional for many packages, -- Nathan Coulson (conathan) -- Location: British Columbia, Canada Timezone: PST (-8) Webpage: http://www.nathancoulson.com -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-dev] ConsoleKit
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 9:59 PM, Nathan Coulson conat...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 6:48 PM, Randy McMurchy ra...@linuxfromscratch.org wrote: g if this subject has been discussed and I missed the discussion. I am curious about BLFS' view on the obsolete and deprecated package ConsoleKit. ConsoleKit is listed as a dependency for several BLFS packages, and recommended for at least one package. The issue is the package is unmaintained. Not a consolekit user here, so apologies if I'm completely wrong. If it has been depreciated and unmaintained, Ideally we would want packages to target it's replacement. Looks like systemd-loginctl is it's replacement. http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/ConsoleKit. (and currently we do not use systemd in the book). Based on that, I'd recommend keeping it unless it's a maintenance burden on us, or it's no longer useful for the required packages. Just like GTK+2 replaced GTK+1, when all the packages moved over, and I imagine GTK+3 will eventually supplant GTK+2 If it's required for a package, or optional for many packages, -- Nathan Coulson (conathan) -- Location: British Columbia, Canada Timezone: PST (-8) Webpage: http://www.nathancoulson.com sorry, sent prematurely. Just ignore that last line. -- Nathan Coulson (conathan) -- Location: British Columbia, Canada Timezone: PST (-8) Webpage: http://www.nathancoulson.com -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
