On Sunday 29 June 2008, Glenn Saberton wrote: > I was wondering what the general consensus would be in regard to > splitting the netcfg package up a little further than what it is at the > moment. After my last set of patches it was mentioned and I think it > actually sounds like a fairly good idea. > I imagine netcfg-static doesn't really need wireless support at all, Agreed. > netcfg could just have the > standard dhcp version and then netcfg-wireless with the wireless stuff > and added burden of wpasupplicant. At least then the less bloated > packages could be included for the installer images where they are > directed more at server installs and the wireless stuff at say i386 and > amd64 cd's where there are likely to be laptop users. Thoughts? I don't really see the point in this, especially as we do not really have "images directed at server installs". Also, wireless is not limited to laptops, even if it's most common there. What is the problem with the solution discussed earlier: have netcfg just support wireless and wpasupplicant, but not fail if wpasupplicant isn't available? I really doubt we could make a clear distinction of cases where we'd want netcfg versus netcfg-wireless *and* have it make a difference. I also don't really think we want to further complicate maintenance of netcfg by having 3 variants.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.