systemd user session integration

Andrzej ndrwrdck at
Sun Jul 1 10:24:46 CEST 2012

On 01/07/12 14:41, Auke Kok wrote:
> Optional, certainly, but we shouldn't make Xfce session run in
> old-school mode when e.g. --with-systemd-integration is passed.

Auke, just to clarify: I'm speaking as a user and have little experience 
with xfce4-session and related services.

*My opinion* is that xfce4-session works well to me and I'd like to keep 
it that way. Other developers may have, and probably do have, different 

> Just writing 2 lines of code in Xfce4-session to call sd-notify is
> useless, and you should not even bother if that's all that you want to
> do, it's more of an insult then helpful, really. (you can already do
> that right now without changes, just watch my demo video here:

Didn't mean to insult you (of course), although I do realize that my 
opinion could have been disappointing to you. Sorry about that. If 
Xfce4-session already works well with systemd that's fantastic - the job 
is done as far as I'm concerned. I simply assumed that "pray it all 
works" means there are still things left to do.

> What's wrong with determining which parts of Xfce4-session should be
> independently started components and allowing a systemd-based host to
> take full advantage of things like daemon watchdogs, starting based on
> dependencies, etc. ?

How about simply not starting xfce4-session at all and instead doing 
everything on the systemd side? I have no problem with adding new 
activation methods (I assume they do no harm when not used), and 
notifications. Sure, we end up with a second, very different start-up 
mechanism but that's alright as long as downstream is responsible for 
configuring and maintaining it.

IMHO if the user decides to start xfce4-session instead, it should all 
work the old way.


More information about the Xfce4-dev mailing list