On 2013-12-22 02:20:15 +0100, Michael Biebl wrote:
> Am 22.12.2013 00:12, schrieb Vincent Lefevre:
> > When I upgraded my second machine yesterday, I noticed that both
> > libpam-systemd and systemd had been installed, so that I thought
> > the bug was related to one of them. So, I did some tests to see
> > what minimal change triggered the problem, and it was not due to
> > libpam-systemd (which depends on systemd), but to systemd itself.
> > That's why I've reassigned the bug to systemd.
>
> I'm not convinced the bug is in systemd and the package is clearly not
> unrelated (as lightdm has systemd specific code) so the severity is
> incorrect.
OK, though this is more complex than that. I didn't install systemd
to use systemd, but just because systemd was installed as an indirect
dependency of some GNOME tool (actually for this reason, the only
solution would be that lightdm had code to optionally disable systemd
support on its side).
> It's very well possible that it's lightdm which has broken logind
> specific. Hard to tell with this little information.
I suppose that the calls related to systemd are:
r = login1_call_function ("CanSuspend", NULL, NULL);
r = login1_call_function ("CanHibernate", NULL, NULL);
r = login1_call_function ("CanReboot", NULL, NULL);
r = login1_call_function ("CanPowerOff", NULL, NULL);
and their handling is the same. Two of them work (CanSuspend and
CanPowerOff), but not the other two (CanHibernate and CanReboot).
Unless some names are incorrect, there seems to be at least an
inconsistency on systemd's side.
Otherwise is there a way to do a test of logind from the shell
such as querying the status of these features?
--
Vincent Lefèvre <vinc...@vinc17.net> - Web: <http://www.vinc17.net/>
100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <http://www.vinc17.net/blog/>
Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / AriC project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
