Distributors ponder a systemd change

Posted Jun 10, 2016 22:23 UTC (Fri) by xtifr (guest, #143)
In reply to: Distributors ponder a systemd change by niner
Parent article: Distributors ponder a systemd change

So you have a bunch of programs with bugs (don't respond properly to SIGHUP), and this will merely hide those bugs!

Wouldn't it be better in the long run to have those bugs fixed? And wouldn't it be easier to fix them if the bugs weren't hidden?

In the case of the various GNOME-specific processes which are supposed to be shared between sessions and thus shouldn't necessarily just die whenever one session shuts down (so they can't just die on SIGHUP), they should, instead, keep track of how many sessions they've been attached to (probably via dbus or something), and kill themselves when the last session goes away.

And this kill-everything option could remain an option for people like you who have buggy processes which don't shut themselves down when they should (either when receiving SIGHUP or when their last session goes away). I'm fine with that. But making it a default for everyone, and forcing every program that might be intended to survive beyond logout to be modified just for systemd-based systems seems like the wrong choice.