Re: iw: priority should be "optional"
Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Sat, 2010-07-31 at 16:56 -0500, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> > Package: iw
> > Version: 0.9.19-1
> > Severity: important
> > Justification: policy §2.5
> >
> > aircrack-ng depends on iw, but the former is optional and the latter of
> > priority "extra". Please bump up the priority of iw to optional to
> > match.
> [...]
>
> I see that this change is pending.
>
> However, I would go further and suggest that iw should be standard, as
> should crda and ethtool.
"standard" as in "installed by default on all new Debian systems,
whether they have a wireless card or not"? What benefit would that
provide?
I do think we should migrate from wireless-tools to iw. For iw, I'd
suggest taking the same approach currently used by wireless-tools: have
d-i install them if needed, and otherwise let dependencies (or users)
pull them in when needed. (This assumes that the existing users of
wireless-tools understand how to use iw; if not, they need fixing.)
The description of the crda package doesn't really make it obvious why
users might want it. To enable wifi frequencies that some locales don't
permit, such as channels 12-14? That seems worthy of a Recommends at
most, and quite possibly just a Suggests.
As for ethtool, what rationale do you propose for having it installed on
all systems, even granting the assumption that most useful systems have
a network device of some kind? What makes it necessary to have
available without first running apt{-get,itude} install ethtool or
installing a package which depends on it? What package with priority
standard wants to use it, or why do you expect that most admins will
need to run it?
- Josh Triplett
Reply to: