[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

[Pkg-xfce-devel] Bug#640082: Bug#640082: Please start xfce4-notifyd via the session manager

Am 02.09.2011 07:56, schrieb Yves-Alexis Perez:
> On ven., 2011-09-02 at 04:57 +0200, Michael Biebl wrote:
>> We have been discussing that on IRC for a while, and we came to the
>> conclusion, that it should be up to the individual desktop environment
>> to depend on its notification system of choice.
>> The notification daemons should no longer be started via dbus activation
>> and instead by the session manager, so we have a defined and reliabe
>> behaviour. 
> I have to admit I'm still puzzled by that. Back in time, it seemed like
> seamless activation through dbus was the way to go and that autostarting
> was bad.

Curious, so you have any references for that?

> I'm not completely against the change (though it's really upstream call)
> but what do we lose in the transition?

The notification system is no longer started on demand. I.e. you can't just kill
it anymore and have it magically restart again. Also, the notification system
will be started, wether or not it is actually used.

For KDE and GNOME3 / gnome-shell this is not really a concern, as the
notification system is builtin now.

Also, using alternative notification systems, like notify-osd, becomes a bit
harder I guess and needs explicit configuration if you want to use them (*).
But again, for KDE and GNOME3 you most likely don't want to replace the
notification system anyway.


(*) right now notify-osd still ships a dbus autostart file, so this is not yet
true. Will have to file a corresponding bug there.
Why is it that all of the instruments seeking intelligent life in the
universe are pointed away from Earth?

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 900 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-xfce-devel/attachments/20110902/794330f6/attachment.pgp>

Reply to: