On Mon, 18.03.13 11:39, Simon McVittie ([email protected]) wrote:
>
> On 16/03/13 15:10, Cedric BAIL wrote:
> > I think I am a little bit late about integrating systemd user
> > session in a desktop
>
> Not really; as far as I can see, non-trivial systemd user sessions under
> X
On Sun, 17.03.13 00:10, Cedric BAIL ([email protected]) wrote:
> Hello,
>
>I am currently working on improving Enlightenment integration with
> Systemd. So far, I have done the easiest thing, socket activation in
> our network library with just one flag and notification when the main
> loop
On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 4:33 AM, Kok, Auke-jan H
wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 8:10 AM, Cedric BAIL wrote:
>>As both of those process start visible application that should not
>> be killed on a restart of the initialization daemon carelessly, they
>> do have the same issue as Enlightenment
On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 8:10 AM, Cedric BAIL wrote:
>As both of those process start visible application that should not
> be killed on a restart of the initialization daemon carelessly, they
> do have the same issue as Enlightenment.
>
>Something that would be nice is if we could instruct
On 16/03/13 15:10, Cedric BAIL wrote:
> I think I am a little bit late about integrating systemd user
> session in a desktop
Not really; as far as I can see, non-trivial systemd user sessions under
X11 need some more thought, and some more code.
Specifically, they need at least a change to lo
Hello,
I am currently working on improving Enlightenment integration with
Systemd. So far, I have done the easiest thing, socket activation in
our network library with just one flag and notification when the main
loop is finally started. I am now facing various issue.
I have added support f
