FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Redhat > Fedora Desktop

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 01-06-2008, 10:50 PM
"Paul W. Frields"
 
Default musings on session service mgmt

On Fri, 2008-01-04 at 10:21 -0900, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
> On Jan 4, 2008 9:50 AM, Nils Philippsen <nphilipp@redhat.com> wrote:
> > If I'm not off track, at least screen predates X session management by a
> > few years. So if anything, X session management was (for want of a
> > better word) designed to not make established ways how to make a process
> > a daemon (and screen, nohup etc. do nothing else) break.
>
> I personally don't know what I would do if screen was forcibly exited
> when I left the desktop environment. I've been relying on screen to
> run data analysis processes which take a long time due primarily to
> file i/o and not memory or cpu. What would be the quickest and least
> annoying workaround for that behavior. I guess it would be to open a
> gnome-terminal, then ssh into localhost and then start screen from
> inside the ssh session. Then when the desktop session ended and all
> related processes were killed, gnome-terminal and the ssh connection
> would die, but the screen session would live because it was started
> from inside the ssh session and thus outside the scope of desktop
> session itself.

I can't *wait* to explain that in the release notes.

--
Paul W. Frields, RHCE http://paul.frields.org/
gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
Fedora Project: http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/
irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug
--
Fedora-desktop-list mailing list
Fedora-desktop-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-desktop-list
 
Old 01-07-2008, 02:16 PM
David Zeuthen
 
Default musings on session service mgmt

On Sun, 2008-01-06 at 18:50 -0500, Paul W. Frields wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-01-04 at 10:21 -0900, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
> > On Jan 4, 2008 9:50 AM, Nils Philippsen <nphilipp@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > If I'm not off track, at least screen predates X session management by a
> > > few years. So if anything, X session management was (for want of a
> > > better word) designed to not make established ways how to make a process
> > > a daemon (and screen, nohup etc. do nothing else) break.
> >
> > I personally don't know what I would do if screen was forcibly exited
> > when I left the desktop environment. I've been relying on screen to
> > run data analysis processes which take a long time due primarily to
> > file i/o and not memory or cpu. What would be the quickest and least
> > annoying workaround for that behavior. I guess it would be to open a
> > gnome-terminal, then ssh into localhost and then start screen from
> > inside the ssh session. Then when the desktop session ended and all
> > related processes were killed, gnome-terminal and the ssh connection
> > would die, but the screen session would live because it was started
> > from inside the ssh session and thus outside the scope of desktop
> > session itself.
>
> I can't *wait* to explain that in the release notes.

No, Jeff is getting it wrong. According to the thread SIGHUP is proposed
to be used and screen(1) don't exit when someone sends SIGHUP to it. No
need to cry wolf...

David


--
Fedora-desktop-list mailing list
Fedora-desktop-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-desktop-list
 
Old 01-07-2008, 02:56 PM
"Paul W. Frields"
 
Default musings on session service mgmt

On Mon, 2008-01-07 at 10:16 -0500, David Zeuthen wrote:
> On Sun, 2008-01-06 at 18:50 -0500, Paul W. Frields wrote:
> > On Fri, 2008-01-04 at 10:21 -0900, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
> > > On Jan 4, 2008 9:50 AM, Nils Philippsen <nphilipp@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > > If I'm not off track, at least screen predates X session management by a
> > > > few years. So if anything, X session management was (for want of a
> > > > better word) designed to not make established ways how to make a process
> > > > a daemon (and screen, nohup etc. do nothing else) break.
> > >
> > > I personally don't know what I would do if screen was forcibly exited
> > > when I left the desktop environment. I've been relying on screen to
> > > run data analysis processes which take a long time due primarily to
> > > file i/o and not memory or cpu. What would be the quickest and least
> > > annoying workaround for that behavior. I guess it would be to open a
> > > gnome-terminal, then ssh into localhost and then start screen from
> > > inside the ssh session. Then when the desktop session ended and all
> > > related processes were killed, gnome-terminal and the ssh connection
> > > would die, but the screen session would live because it was started
> > > from inside the ssh session and thus outside the scope of desktop
> > > session itself.
> >
> > I can't *wait* to explain that in the release notes.
>
> No, Jeff is getting it wrong. According to the thread SIGHUP is proposed
> to be used and screen(1) don't exit when someone sends SIGHUP to it. No
> need to cry wolf...

/me wipes sweat from brow. :-) Thanks, David.

--
Paul W. Frields, RHCE http://paul.frields.org/
gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
Fedora Project: http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/
irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug
--
Fedora-desktop-list mailing list
Fedora-desktop-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-desktop-list
 
Old 01-08-2008, 08:05 AM
Alexander Larsson
 
Default musings on session service mgmt

On Mon, 2008-01-07 at 10:16 -0500, David Zeuthen wrote:
> On Sun, 2008-01-06 at 18:50 -0500, Paul W. Frields wrote:
> > On Fri, 2008-01-04 at 10:21 -0900, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
> > > On Jan 4, 2008 9:50 AM, Nils Philippsen <nphilipp@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > > If I'm not off track, at least screen predates X session management by a
> > > > few years. So if anything, X session management was (for want of a
> > > > better word) designed to not make established ways how to make a process
> > > > a daemon (and screen, nohup etc. do nothing else) break.
> > >
> > > I personally don't know what I would do if screen was forcibly exited
> > > when I left the desktop environment. I've been relying on screen to
> > > run data analysis processes which take a long time due primarily to
> > > file i/o and not memory or cpu. What would be the quickest and least
> > > annoying workaround for that behavior. I guess it would be to open a
> > > gnome-terminal, then ssh into localhost and then start screen from
> > > inside the ssh session. Then when the desktop session ended and all
> > > related processes were killed, gnome-terminal and the ssh connection
> > > would die, but the screen session would live because it was started
> > > from inside the ssh session and thus outside the scope of desktop
> > > session itself.
> >
> > I can't *wait* to explain that in the release notes.
>
> No, Jeff is getting it wrong. According to the thread SIGHUP is proposed
> to be used and screen(1) don't exit when someone sends SIGHUP to it. No
> need to cry wolf...

SIGHUP already have a defined meaning, and is normally sent when the
controlling tty disappears. In an X session this would be when the
terminal app dies. I'm not sure that extending/changing this will work
well.

--
Fedora-desktop-list mailing list
Fedora-desktop-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-desktop-list
 
Old 01-08-2008, 04:24 PM
Colin Walters
 
Default musings on session service mgmt

On Tue, 2008-01-08 at 10:05 +0100, Alexander Larsson wrote:

> SIGHUP already have a defined meaning, and is normally sent when the
> controlling tty disappears.

Right.

> In an X session this would be when the
> terminal app dies. I'm not sure that extending/changing this will work
> well.

It seems analogous to me to send SIGHUP to the process group when the
desktop session ends. ConsoleKit adds a new notion of "session" defined
by the XDG_SESSION_COOKIE which includes even processes which
disassociate themselves from the initial login process group. That's
fine and should make things more robust, though I would still argue that
processes launched as part of the "normal" desktop which setsid (or more
generally "daemonize") are wrong.

Anyways, I think if David changes ConsoleKit to send SIGHUP instead of
SIGTERM/SIGKILL as he said he would, we're all happy. "nohup" etc.
continue to work unmodified.


--
Fedora-desktop-list mailing list
Fedora-desktop-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-desktop-list
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 07:28 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org