dbus-sesssion questions

[Mark Hindley]

Simon and Matthias,

Thanks for this and sorry for the slow reply.

On Tue, Jul 14, 2026 at 12:29:05PM +0200, Matthias Geiger wrote:
> > The way I had originally anticipated that this would work, when I
> > introduced dbus-user-session, is that dbus-user-session could have
> > alternative dependencies on anything that will arrange for the desired
> > semantics to exist, so perhaps like this:
> > 
> >     Depends:
> >      libpam-systemd | dbus-openrc-user-session | dbus-turnstile-user-session | runit-dbus-user-session,
> >      ...

Do you mind the workload of maintaining that in dbus?

> > The other way this could potentially work would be for these other
> > implementations of a "user bus" to have a Provides for dbus-session-bus
> > and dbus-user-session, meaning that systemd users would have
> > dbus-user-session + libpam-systemd, but e.g. runit users would only have
> > runit-dbus-user-session (and *not* dbus-user-session). However, that
> > would mean that these other packages would need to duplicate what
> > /etc/X11/Xsession.d/20dbus_xdg-runtime does,

This appears to be less work for you?  Whilst there may be some duplication, it
also allows individual implementations to adapt the Xsession.d hook to their
specific requirements.

I am leaning towards this as a preferable route, but am open to persuasion
otherwise.

Best wishes

Mark