KDM + ConsoleKit + Logind

[Harald Sitter]

On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 2:09 PM, Matthias Klumpp <matthias at tenstral.net> wrote:
> 2014-02-17 13:55 GMT+01:00 Lukáš Tinkl <ltinkl at redhat.com>:
>> Dne 17.2.2014 11:51, Harald Sitter napsal(a):
>>
>>> Ahoys
>>>
>>> I was looking for some input on KDM+CK in a Logind world. When a
>>> system is using Logind I guess KDM+CK doesn't do much useful, so the
>>> question arose whether distributions with such a lineup should build
>>> without CK support. In short:
>>>
>>> If the rest of the system uses Logind, should KDM be built without CK
>>> support?
>>>
>>> Would building without CK support reduce user functionality, and if so
>>> aren't we then essentially requiring distributions that use KDM to
>>> continue using CK until Plasma Next comes along? (we are not
>>> communicating this very if this is the case).
>> Hi,
>> I'm not entirely sure about kdm but for the rest of the code in
>> kde-workspace (kworkspace, powerdevil et co.), login1 support is fairly
>> complete and preferred over CK.
> We are using a KDE 4.11 systemd running on pure logind in Tanglu
> without any reported issues. KDM has multiseat patches applied, which
> were taken from[1].
> We also adjusted some other dependencies, but that was just minor work
> on the packaging.
> So yes, you can use KDM with logind, but I am not sure that using it
> at all will make sense long-term, since KDM is dead now.

Right, but short of patching KDM to gain proper logind support, should
one build with or without CK, i.e. does CK add anything useful if the
rest of the system is not using it anyway?

I mean, it's a crappy situation either way. The DM we ship with our
workspace is not maintained and suggests usage of CK while the rest of
the workspace really wants logind, so, not the most consistent
requirement set to begin with.

HS