bug#40680: closed ([PATCH] service: sddm: Have sddm-service-type conflict with other display managers.)

[GNU bug Tracking System]

Your message dated Sun, 19 Apr 2020 09:07:29 +0300
with message-id <20200419060729.GB939@E5400>
and subject line Re: [bug#40680] [PATCH] service: sddm: Have sddm-service-type 
conflict with other display managers.
has caused the debbugs.gnu.org bug report #40680,
regarding [PATCH] service: sddm: Have sddm-service-type conflict with other 
display managers.
to be marked as done.

(If you believe you have received this mail in error, please contact
address@hidden.)


-- 
40680: http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=40680
GNU Bug Tracking System
Contact address@hidden with problems
> --- Begin Message ---
>
>
>
> Subject: 
>
> [PATCH] service: sddm: Have sddm-service-type conflict with other display managers.
>
>
>
>
> Date: 
>
> Fri, 17 Apr 2020 17:41:15 +0300
>
>
>
>
> * gnu/services/sddm.scm (sddm-shepherd-service)[shepherd-service]:
> Conflict with 'xorg-server.
> ---
>
> I was looking over the services list with raingloom on IRC and I noticed
> that GDM and Slim both provision xorg-server, while SDDM provisions
> display-manager. To ensure that they conflict with each other we can
> either:
>
> A: Have SDDM conflict with 'xorg-server
>
> B: Have SDDM also provision 'xorg-server
>
> I'm currently using SDDM (in Wayland mode) to launch an X session of
> Enlightenment, so I think it's safe enough to say that SDDM can
> provision 'xorg-server.
>
> ---
>
>  gnu/services/sddm.scm | 1 +
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>
> diff --git a/gnu/services/sddm.scm b/gnu/services/sddm.scm
> index 1921afce95..aa08859513 100644
> --- a/gnu/services/sddm.scm
> +++ b/gnu/services/sddm.scm
> @@ -171,6 +171,7 @@ Relogin="              (if (sddm-configuration-relogin? 
> config)
>           (documentation "SDDM display manager.")
>           (requirement '(user-processes))
>           (provision '(display-manager))
> +         (conflicts-with '(xorg-server))
>           (start #~(make-forkexec-constructor #$sddm-command))
>           (stop #~(make-kill-destructor)))))
>  
> -- 
> 2.26.1
>
>
>
>
> --- End Message ---

--- Begin Message --- Subject: Re: [bug#40680] [PATCH] service: sddm: Have sddm-service-type conflict with other display managers. Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2020 09:07:29 +0300

On Sun, Apr 19, 2020 at 01:33:07AM +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Efraim Flashner <address@hidden> skribis:
> 
> > On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 11:00:49PM +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
> >> > --- a/gnu/services/sddm.scm
> >> > +++ b/gnu/services/sddm.scm
> >> > @@ -171,6 +171,7 @@ Relogin="              (if 
> >> > (sddm-configuration-relogin? config)
> >> >           (documentation "SDDM display manager.")
> >> >           (requirement '(user-processes))
> >> >           (provision '(display-manager))
> >> > +         (conflicts-with '(xorg-server))
> >> 
> >> ‘conflicts-with’ doesn’t exist, right?  :-)
> >> 
> >
> > I haven't tried it out for Guix services, but it exists for shepherd
> > services, according to the manual¹
> 
> Right, it’s not available in Guix <shepherd-service>.
> 
> However, simplify adding ‘xorg-server’ to ‘provision’ should have the
> desired effect: ‘guix system’ errors out if more than one service
> provides the same symbol.
> 
> >> But yes, I think (provision '(xorg-server display-manager)) would be
> >> fine.
> >> 
> >> Or we can even drop ‘display-manager’ since it’s not used anywhere else.
> >
> > Normally I'd be skeptical about dropping it since people might expect it
> > if they're using sddm, but it'd probably be fine.
> 
> Yeah, maybe it’s safer to keep it.
> 
> Thanks,
> Ludo’.

Sounds good. I put xorg-server first so it more closely matches with the
other ones.

-- 
Efraim Flashner   <address@hidden>   אפרים פלשנר
GPG key = A28B F40C 3E55 1372 662D  14F7 41AA E7DC CA3D 8351
Confidentiality cannot be guaranteed on emails sent or received unencrypted

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

--- End Message ---