Trying to reduce our memory and battery footprint

[Robert Ancell]

On 16/10/12 09:23, Ted Gould wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-10-15 at 21:19 +0200, Sebastien Bacher wrote:
>> Le 15/10/2012 21:10, Ted Gould a écrit :
>>> I don't believe that
>>> happened in the Q cycle, do we think that we could get upstart
>> James pinged me recently because foundation is planning work for next 
>> cycle and wanted to know what's the most important on the list for 
>> desktop. I said it would be "user session jobs", do other still agree 
>> with that? If you have other request I think there is still time at UDS 
>> to discuss those
> I still don't understand why we want a single upstart instance and not
> one system one and one per session.  I think that having a single
> instance is what makes user jobs difficult as you have to handle all the
> states of things like encrypted file systems, where if we started the
> upstart process later, PAM/lightdm would do it for us.  There are other
> benefits too, but at least if I can move that out of the way I can get
> other features :-)
>
I agree there, I don't think it's reliably possible to have a root
daemon launch things for a user. Since PAM is so flexible it could have
set anything in the root session process that is required for
application to run.