On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 1:41 PM, Rich Mattes <richmattes(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 12:20 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
> On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 06:15:08PM +0200, Björn Persson wrote:
>> Dominique Martinet <dominique.martinet(a)cea.fr> wrote:
>> > Just noticed this change on rawhide...
>> > https://github.com/systemd/systemd/blob/master/NEWS#L29
>> > * systemd-logind will now by default terminate user processes that
>> > part of the user session scope unit (session-XX.scope) when the
>> > logs out. This behavior is controlled by the KillUserProcesses=
>> > setting in logind.conf, and the previous default of "no" is
>> > changed to "yes". This means that user sessions will be
>> > cleaned up after, but additional steps are necessary to allow
>> > intentionally long-running processes to survive logout.
>> This sounds very much like a system-wide Change. Where can I find the
>> Change proposal?
> It's not a Fedora-specific change. See the other parts of the thread
> for links to upstream discussions (in particular the mail from Michal).
I don't see anything in the Changes policy that limits it to
Fedora-specific changes. In fact, changes like this are exactly what
the policy seems to capture:
"Complex system wide changes involve system-wide defaults, critical
path components, or other changes that are not eligible as self
This is a system-wide default change in a critpath component, which
qualifies twice! But seriously, large changes in new upstream
releases are often captured by the change process (boost updates,
glibc and gcc updates, etc.) Using the change process in this case
would let us coordinate efforts and address and answer technical
questions like "how do you indicate that you want a process to persist
after logout," "can we/how do we modify programs that rely on this
behavior to do the right thing (screen, tmux, etc.)," and "does it
make sense to deviate from upstream in any fedora products," in
addition to philosophical questions like what a "logout" really means
or should mean, before the change landed.
I agree; just because the change happened upstream in systemd doesn't mean
that this shouldn't be evaluated in Fedora itself before being turned on by
This absolutely seems like the kind of thing that should be a system-wide
change proposal (for F25, I guess).