Description of problem: When updated, the ConsoleKit daemon isn't restarted, i.e. bugfixes aren't active after the update but would require manual restarting (which loses sessions, see bug #435641) or a reboot (bad). Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): ConsoleKit-0.2.3-3.fc8.1 How reproducible: Reproducible Steps to Reproduce: 1. Update ConsoleKit Actual results: Old version is running Expected results: New version is running Additional info:
No, for exactly the same reasons we don't restart the system bus daemon or X or the kernel. See lots of discussion on the dbus-list.
Acutally, we do restart kernel. Metadata in our repositories can hold an information if an update requires reboot; the same applies to ConsoleKit.
(In reply to comment #2) > Acutally, we do restart kernel. Metadata in our repositories can hold an > information if an update requires reboot; the same applies to ConsoleKit. Uhm.. No, we don't restart the kernel (as in kexec'ing into the new kernel keeping user space alive and well). You're thinking about rebooting the system. Which is wildly different.
(In reply to comment #3) > (In reply to comment #2) > > Acutally, we do restart kernel. Metadata in our repositories can hold an > > information if an update requires reboot; the same applies to ConsoleKit. > > Uhm.. No, we don't restart the kernel (as in kexec'ing into the new kernel > keeping user space alive and well). You're thinking about rebooting the system. > Which is wildly different. Well, rebooting the system could be interpreted as "restarting the kernel" but that isn't done in all cases either (pup asks the user in that case and only reboots if it is confirmed). Marking a ConsoleKit update to suggest rebooting might be the way to go for now. Without actually checking it, I still think that exec'ing a new ConsoleKit binary while keeping sessions persistent is several orders of magnitude easier than switching the kernel image and keeping the userspace alive and well. I know it's not really on your todo list ;-), but if (big if) I found the time to implement it, would you accept patches to ConsoleKit that implemented exec'ing a new binary while keeping existing sessions, if done properly?
(In reply to comment #4) > I know it's not really on your todo list ;-), but if (big if) I found the time > to implement it, would you accept patches to ConsoleKit that implemented > exec'ing a new binary while keeping existing sessions, if done properly? That's up to Jon, he's both the package and upstream maintainer.