>From Lennart Poettering, Thu 23 Oct 2014 at 11:49:27 (+0200) : > On Thu, 23.10.14 08:09, Damien Robert (damien.olivier.robert+gm...@gmail.com) > wrote: > > But isn't using default.target more flexible than basic.target? When > > basic.target is activated I expect at least socket.target, timers.target > > and path.target to get activated too; whereas I could imagine an user > > wanting a completly empty user session [*], which could be done with an > > empty > > default.target [#].
> basic.target includes sockets.target, busnames.target, timers.target > and paths.target as well as sysinit.target. No, that's the system wide basic.target. The user basic.target only has sockets, timers and paths. But I was arguing that basic.target has a well defined meaning (basic system wide/user wide system initialisation), and we may want to allow default.target (in a user session) to be different from basic.target, even if they should be the same for most user cases. > Yes, all user code really should go through PAM, so that security > labels and resource limits can be set up properly. Yeah but do they need to go through pam_systemd.so also? > Regarding graphical stuff: the way I figured this should work is that > all desktop environments would define their own gnome.target, > kde.target, xfce.target and then some graphical.target symlink would > point to the preferred version. These targets would then bring up > averything that's necessary for the specific session type. Ok, that looks nice. _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
