After an evaluation, GNOME has moved from Bugzilla to GitLab. Learn more about GitLab.
No new issues can be reported in GNOME Bugzilla anymore.
To report an issue in a GNOME project, go to GNOME GitLab.
Do not go to GNOME Gitlab for: Bluefish, Doxygen, GnuCash, GStreamer, java-gnome, LDTP, NetworkManager, Tomboy.
Bug 772408 - data: Update session desktop files for g-s-d changes
data: Update session desktop files for g-s-d changes
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Product: gnome-session
Classification: Core
Component: general
unspecified
Other All
: Normal normal
: ---
Assigned To: Session Maintainers
Session Maintainers
Depends on: 772370
Blocks:
 
 
Reported: 2016-10-04 13:34 UTC by Bastien Nocera
Modified: 2016-10-11 09:36 UTC
See Also:
GNOME target: ---
GNOME version: ---


Attachments
data: Update session desktop files for g-s-d changes (2.45 KB, patch)
2016-10-04 13:35 UTC, Bastien Nocera
none Details | Review
data: Update session desktop files for g-s-d changes (1.75 KB, patch)
2016-10-04 17:33 UTC, Bastien Nocera
none Details | Review
gnome-session: Export ibus configuration for legacy toolkits (1.00 KB, patch)
2016-10-04 22:16 UTC, Bastien Nocera
rejected Details | Review
data: Update session desktop files for g-s-d changes (2.18 KB, patch)
2016-10-07 11:39 UTC, Bastien Nocera
none Details | Review
data: Update session desktop files for g-s-d changes (2.15 KB, patch)
2016-10-07 12:15 UTC, Bastien Nocera
committed Details | Review

Description Bastien Nocera 2016-10-04 13:34:50 UTC
.
Comment 1 Bastien Nocera 2016-10-04 13:35:07 UTC
Created attachment 336902 [details] [review]
data: Update session desktop files for g-s-d changes

gnome-settings-daemon has been split up into separate daemons, which
means we'll need to invoke those separately.

See https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=772370
Comment 2 Bastien Nocera 2016-10-04 17:33:26 UTC
Created attachment 336938 [details] [review]
data: Update session desktop files for g-s-d changes

gnome-settings-daemon has been split up into separate daemons, which
means we'll need to invoke those separately.

See https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=772370
Comment 3 Bastien Nocera 2016-10-04 22:16:39 UTC
Created attachment 336959 [details] [review]
gnome-session: Export ibus configuration for legacy toolkits

As was done in gnome-settings-daemon before 3.23.1.
Comment 4 Ray Strode [halfline] 2016-10-05 18:47:43 UTC
Review of attachment 336959 [details] [review]:

we actually already do that in main () i think
Comment 5 Ray Strode [halfline] 2016-10-05 21:17:03 UTC
Review of attachment 336938 [details] [review]:

so one question i have is, "which of these should leave the user with a fail whale if they fail to start?".  Anyone that shouldn't, maybe should get started another way. (dbus activation, xdg autostart, systemd eventually)
Comment 6 Bastien Nocera 2016-10-06 13:48:28 UTC
(In reply to Ray Strode [halfline] from comment #4)
> Review of attachment 336959 [details] [review] [review]:
> 
> we actually already do that in main () i think

Yeah, we do. I'm fine doing this in main() as it doesn't have the same problems as changing the locale after the fact (setlocale() is not thread safe), but why do we run maybe_push_env_var() when that should already have been done in the startup script? Either we do it in one or the other, not both.
Comment 7 Bastien Nocera 2016-10-06 13:55:34 UTC
(In reply to Ray Strode [halfline] from comment #5)
> Review of attachment 336938 [details] [review] [review]:
> 
> so one question i have is, "which of these should leave the user with a fail
> whale if they fail to start?".  Anyone that shouldn't, maybe should get
> started another way. (dbus activation, xdg autostart, systemd eventually)

If they crash, it's fair to say that gnome-settings-daemon would have crashed as well. So I'm not fussed about requiring them all right now, as long as we nicely stub the ones that can't run on specific environments (gdm and/or wayland).

I'd like to move to using systemd *before* making some of them runtime activated (the "run gsd with systemd" bug has some of that work done for the xrandr plugin), or timer based (not done yet, but housekeeping would use this).

But if we take too long implementing the systemd session bits, we can always optimise the g-s-d bits and revisit this gnome-session patch.
Comment 8 Bastien Nocera 2016-10-06 13:56:07 UTC
Comment on attachment 336938 [details] [review]
data: Update session desktop files for g-s-d changes

Marking as needs-work as we'll want to use rev-DNS notation for the desktop filenames.
Comment 9 Ray Strode [halfline] 2016-10-06 20:45:17 UTC
Hi,
> but why do we run maybe_push_env_var() when that should already have
> been done in the startup script? Either we do it in one or the other, not
> both.
Yea no good reason.  Just the maybe_push_env_var calls predate the import call in the shell script wrapper.  we could drop them.
Comment 10 Bastien Nocera 2016-10-07 11:39:37 UTC
Created attachment 337158 [details] [review]
data: Update session desktop files for g-s-d changes

gnome-settings-daemon has been split up into separate daemons, which
means we'll need to invoke those separately.

See https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=772370
Comment 11 Bastien Nocera 2016-10-07 11:40:41 UTC
(In reply to Ray Strode [halfline] from comment #9)
> Hi,
> > but why do we run maybe_push_env_var() when that should already have
> > been done in the startup script? Either we do it in one or the other, not
> > both.
> Yea no good reason.  Just the maybe_push_env_var calls predate the import
> call in the shell script wrapper.  we could drop them.

Patch in https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=772562
Comment 12 Bastien Nocera 2016-10-07 12:15:20 UTC
Created attachment 337162 [details] [review]
data: Update session desktop files for g-s-d changes

gnome-settings-daemon has been split up into separate daemons, which
means we'll need to invoke those separately.

See https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=772370
Comment 13 Ray Strode [halfline] 2016-10-10 13:24:55 UTC
Review of attachment 337162 [details] [review]:

we have to branch and wait for the g-s-d side to land first of course, but otherwise, this seems fine