On Mo, 01.07.24 12:36, Lennart Poettering (lennart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) wrote: > On So, 30.06.24 22:48, Vladimir Kudrya (vladimir-csp@xxxxxxxxx) wrote: > > > Hello everyone! > > > > I'm noticing an issue on my system (Debian sid) on shutdown. Wlroots > > compositors try to communicate release of session to logind, but logind is > > already gone, so conflicts arise due to activation attempts, journal is > > spammed with stuff like this: > > > > Jun 29 10:38:13 hostname systemd[1]: Requested transaction contradicts existing jobs: Transaction for systemd-logind.service/start is destructive (dev-disk-by\x2dpath-pci\x2d0000:02:00.0\x2dnvme\x2d1\x2dpart-by\x2dlabel-swap_1.swap has 'stop' job queued, but 'start' is included in transaction). > > Jun 29 10:38:13 hostname uwsm_sway.desktop[5886]: 00:27:37.977 [ERROR] [wlr] [libseat] [libseat/backend/logind.c:199] Could not close device: Could not activate remote peer 'org.freedesktop.login1': activation request failed: a concurrent deactivation request is already in progress > > > > Adding After=systemd-logind.service to user@.service seems to fix this issue > > with no ill effects. But two questions arise: why there is no such ordering > > by default, and is it conceptually correct? > > Hmm, so we typically don't sync on systemd-logind for user > stuff/sessions if we can avoid that, since the root user is a user > that shall be allowed logging in too, and typically much earlier than > regular users, i.e long before logind is up. > > That said, given that user@.service is pretty much a logind concept, I > guess we should have at least that dep in place. > > Can you please file an issue (or even better a PR), that adds the dep on > logind to user@.service)? That'd be great! (I guess this bug was introduced by 278e815bfa3e4c2e3914e00121c37fc844cb2025 btw, which had an indirect dep in place, which was removed entirely. Replacing it with a dependenc on systemd-logind.service should be safe and good afaics) Lennart -- Lennart Poettering, Berlin