[02:49] <xnox> larsu: where are these "upstart activated indicators" come from? it's completely wrong, since indicator itself has no knoweledge wether it should be running or not.
[02:50] <xnox> larsu: and indeed it should be activate externally, sure it could be dbus activation, or a upstart event / explicit start, or what not. But by no means I should be starting _all_ indicators ever in e.g. ubiquity-dm or lightdm.
[03:01] <ali1234> xnox: bug 1185565
[03:01] <ubot2`> Launchpad bug 1185565 in ubiquity (Ubuntu) "Indicators should have Upstart jobs" [Medium,In progress] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1185565
[03:03] <xnox> ali1234: it all doen't make any sense. They way upstart works, is that everything is started when it can. But indicators have different profiles/sets depending on the environment (e.g. ubiquity, lightdm, unity, !unity) and thus it's impossible for them to encode a job as to when to start them.
[03:04] <ali1234> *shrug* ask tedg... he coded it all
[03:05] <xnox> ali1234: one shouldn't do that without consultation / consensus. we have vUDS, blueprints, and mailint lists.
[04:28] <xnox> ali1234: i've tested things here and here is the plan: reintroduce xdg-autostart desktop, add xdg-autostart override (if running under upstart), reintroduce dbus activation service file.
[04:28] <xnox> ali1234: once dbus-upstart-activation support lands, one would still need the dbus .service file anyway.
[04:28] <xnox> ali1234: this unbreaks indicators under upstart-less sessions.
[04:29] <ali1234> they all have xdg-autostart files already, and they appear to work under xubuntu (even though it uses upstart anyway)
[04:30] <xnox> ali1234: some of them do not anymore.
[04:30] <xnox> ali1234: i think the point here is that they have been removed upstream, and hence not present on the CD, but e.g. they do work on "upgrades" because the conffile was not properly removed.
[04:31] <xnox> ali1234: can you check if it's owned?
[04:31] <xnox> i agree that xdg-autostart files are probably not strictly required.
[04:33] <ali1234> updating...
[04:35] <ali1234> btw
[04:35] <ali1234> if you are just getting missing indicators, that's probably because the auto-shutdown code is still present
[04:36] <ali1234> so they load up and immediately quit because nothing is ready to use it
[04:36] <xnox> i have something that will use them....
[04:36] <ali1234> "will" - if it doesn't start within 500msec, the service quits
[04:37] <xnox> it is up and using them. but still thanks for the tip.
[04:38] <ali1234> if you put INDICATOR_ALLOW_NO_WATCHERS=yes in the environment it stops this behaviour
[04:44] <ali1234> xnox: http://paste.ubuntu.com/6538877/
[04:46] <ali1234> the dbus service files for bluetooth, keyboard, messages, printers do appear to be unowned
[04:47] <ali1234> and there's no autostart for them either
[10:13] <larsu> xnox: I agree with you (see my comment on that bug).
[19:34] <robert_ancell> attente, around?
[19:36] <attente> robert_ancell, yep
[19:36] <robert_ancell> attente, have you seen bug 1255558?
[19:36] <ubot2`> Launchpad bug 1255558 in lightdm (Ubuntu) "Can't type my password after cold boot" [High,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1255558
[19:37] <robert_ancell> I was wondering if the indicator-keyboard might be having an effect (i.e. setting a null keyboard layout)
[19:37] <robert_ancell> or g-s-d or something else involved in the keyboard stack
[19:39] <attente> if set_layout isn't called on unity greeter, what layout does it default to at first?
[19:40] <robert_ancell> attente, whatever X does or whatever g-s-d does
[19:40] <robert_ancell> We don't expect to use set_layout in the greeter, we just rely on g-s-d setting up X "correctlyZ"
[19:40] <robert_ancell> - the Z :)
[19:41] <attente> ah, ok
[19:58] <xnox> larsu: i think i'll work something out. e.g. bring back dbus activation, and finally port upstart-dbus-activation such that one can get the upstart benefits yet still dbus-activate.
[22:44] <GunnarHj> robert_ancell: ping?
[22:44] <robert_ancell> GunnarHj, hello
[22:45] <GunnarHj> robert_ancell: Hi, Robert!
[22:45] <GunnarHj> robert_ancell: Have you had a chance to look at https://code.launchpad.net/~gunnarhj/lightdm/startup-dialog/+merge/198004 ?
[22:45] <robert_ancell> GunnarHj, yes, I saw it - looks good!
[22:45] <robert_ancell> I was going to say it needs the translations, but you already mentioned that
[22:46] <robert_ancell> I was wondering if we should run it past the design team, but I don't think they'll have any major objections. We can always update the text later if that is a problem
[22:46] <GunnarHj> robert_ancell: While I think that such an info dialog makes sense as the default behavior, I imagine that some system admins may want to handle it otherwise, so some kind of boolean config option may be advisable.
[22:46] <robert_ancell> yes, that seems likely
[22:46] <Laney> xnox: do that, do it do it do it
[22:46] <robert_ancell> though sysadmins can edit the script if necessary
[22:46] <Laney> bonus if you can get it upstream
[22:47] <robert_ancell> I believe many sysadmins just disable guest account anyway
[22:47] <GunnarHj> robert_ancell: Right, but then the changes get lost at next upgrade...
[22:47] <robert_ancell> GunnarHj, note there is a little bit of a problem with putting UI specific code in lightdm, but I plan to (at some point) split this out into a unity-guest-session package then it wont be a problem
[22:47] <GunnarHj> robert_ancell: Disabling the guest session feature is another thing.
[22:48] <GunnarHj> robert_ancell: Are you saying that it cannot be merged at this time?
[22:49] <robert_ancell> GunnarHj, actually, thinking about that, it would be nicer to just have a script hook of some sort and then we can have a unity hook that shows the warning
[22:49] <robert_ancell> GunnarHj, I think the value of the feature outweighs the downsides
[22:49] <robert_ancell> and we can improve on it later
[22:50] <robert_ancell> with a hook it could be more easily disabled, overridden
[22:52] <GunnarHj> robert_ancell: Actually, using hooks is what I have been doing in https://help.ubuntu.com/community/CustomizeGuestSession for quite a while. This proposal simply moves one of those customization ideas into lightdm, in order to make it the default.
[23:03] <GunnarHj> robert_ancell: As regards the possibility to disable the info dialog, I just got an idea. Getting back to you later.