bug#56971: greeter user permissions are not enough to talk with seatd

[muradm]

Liliana Marie Prikler <liliana.prikler@ist.tugraz.at> writes:

> Am Freitag, dem 05.08.2022 um 09:48 +0300 schrieb muradm:
> > Liliana Marie Prikler <liliana.prikler@ist.tugraz.at> writes:
> >
> > > Am Donnerstag, dem 04.08.2022 um 15:52 +0300 schrieb muradm:
> > > >
> > > > Liliana Marie Prikler <liliana.prikler@ist.tugraz.at> 
> > > > writes:
> > > >
> > > > > [...] [L]ooking at the two patches, it appears they are 
> > > > > to
> > > > > be used in combination?
> > > > >
> > > > No, technically they are not strongly dependent on each 
> > > > other,
> > > > could be applied one after another in no particular order.
> > > > After both are applied, in cooperation they address this 
> > > > issue.
> > > This is what I'm saying, albeit in different words.  As far 
> > > as I
> > > understand, neither of these patches really accomplishes
> > > anything if
> > > not put together.  Thus, you more or less opened three issues 
> > > to
> > > address one.
> > Really I don't know what to comment here else.  My analysis 
> > showed
> > two independent issues, one is that seatd should have a 
> > declared
> > group so that users of it could join it.  This issues is not
> > specific to greetd/greeter in any way.  Any other greeting 
> > mechanism
> > could fall short on this.
> But it is greetd that does, no?  If there are other greeting 
> mechanisms
> currently packaged in Guix falling short of this, please do 
> tell.
Point is not that "there are any/others affected", the point is, 
that
seatd is providing and interface, and currently it has a problem,
which is wrong permission.

> > And second, greeter today required conditional group to 
> > interact with
> > seatd, or it could be any other group like input, usb, modem or 
> > else
> > depending on user setup.
> > Solutions are offered accordingly. Third issue, this bug I was
> > asked to open. I don't understand, is it a sin to have multiple
> > issues, or what is the problem here?
> It is not really a problem, but an observation.  I personally 
> think a
> single series that has both patches would have been more visible 
> than
> this thing split across three topics for two patches.  There is 
> a small
> overhead if you have to consider merges and blocks, even if 
> debbugs
> supports them.
This is phylosophical topic, which I suppose is not in the scope.

> Cheers

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature