GNU bug report logs - #66339
Gnome-team dbus socket in /var/run/dbus, not /run/dbus

Previous Next

Package: guix;

Reported by: Vivien Kraus <vivien.kraus <at> univ-reims.fr>

Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2023 12:53:02 UTC

Severity: normal

Done: Liliana Marie Prikler <liliana.prikler <at> gmail.com>

Bug is archived. No further changes may be made.

Full log


View this message in rfc822 format

From: Liliana Marie Prikler <liliana.prikler <at> gmail.com>
To: Vivien Kraus <vivien <at> planete-kraus.eu>, 66339 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Cc: rg <at> raghavgururajan.name, maxim.cournoyer <at> gmail.com
Subject: bug#66339: [PATCH gnome-team v3] gnu: dbus-service: make the session available under /run/dbus
Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2023 20:50:48 +0200
Am Mittwoch, dem 04.10.2023 um 12:47 +0200 schrieb Vivien Kraus:
> According to
> https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/glib/-/merge_requests/3101, glib
> now searches for the session bus socket in runstatedir. The dbus
> service must
> thus have its socket in /run/dbus.
> 
> For interoperability with the dbus standard, /run/dbus is also
> symlinked to
> /var/run/dbus.
> 
> * gnu/services/dbus.scm (dbus-activation): Symlink /run/dbus to
> /var/run/dbus.
> (%dbus-accounts): Run dbus in /run/dbus.
> (dbus-root-service-type): Save the pid file in /run/dbus.
> ---
> 
> Le jeudi 05 octobre 2023 à 06:41 +0200, Liliana Marie Prikler a écrit
> :
> > > I’m still concerned about doing a symlink in the activation
> > > function.
> > > What if we activate a new system from an existing one? Won’t the
> > > symlink
> > > fail? I think we should preemptively delete /var/run/dbus and
> > > make a new
> > > symlink every time. But I could be wrong, maybe this is not
> > > needed.
> > > 
> > > What do you think?
> > If we go this route, I think we should first check whether
> > /var/run/dbus is indeed a symlink to /run/dbus and move the
> > existing files if not before deleting the directory and creating
> > the symlink.  But before that, we should try to symlink, which will
> > fail with EEXIST if the file already exists, regardless of whether
> > it's a symlink – thereafter you can check the cause of this failure
> > through lstat.
> 
> I changed my mind! I now think it is OK for the system reconfigure to
> fail if a different symlink already exists.
Perhaps, but it's not okay to fail if it's a regular directory.  We
should move those!


Cheers




This bug report was last modified 1 year and 284 days ago.

Previous Next


GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.