Re: Hooking up gnome-session with dbus/kdbus/systemd

[Lennart Poettering <mztabzr 0pointer de>]

On Wed, 22.01.14 11:01, Martyn Russell (martyn lanedo com) wrote:

Heya,

> > a) I'd like to see native D-Bus ".service" activation files deprecated
> >    in dbus. Instead, for the user/session bus, I'd like to see
> >    everything moved to .desktop files. Ryan recently extended the
> >    .desktop spec for declaring bus names in .desktop files so that
> >    applications no longer need to be forked off directly, but can simply
> >    be bus activated. I'd like to take this one step further:
>
> That's pretty cool, didn't know about this.
>
> You suggest moving everything to .desktop files (presumably .service
> file information too), but later say you're not keen on Simon's idea
> to merge the two. Can't we have that as an alternative to native
> service definition files? What are your concerns here?

Well, I am against just merging the file contents unmodified,
i.e. having two sections, one for the desktop file entry, and one for
the bus service. I think that's kinda pointless, given that the file
will still have the ".desktop" suffix, and the bus name is implied for
the file from the .desktop file name, much unlike dbus1 .service files
where the file name is basically irrelevant and the bus name encoded in
the file.

So, I simply think the old .service files from dbus1 are unnecessarily
weakly defined, and much prefer the stricter naming rules introduced by
Ryan's logic. Thus, I'd prefer if we'd just do a minimal extension
regarding the ExecService= or so, and be done with it, instead of
integrating the whole section of old into the new.

I want .deskop files to cover everything that dbus1 .service files did,
but with clean, newly defined semantics, rather than the old baggage of
weak naming rules...

Lennart

-- 
Lennart Poettering, Red Hat