Re: Split up netcfg.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Frans Pop wrote:
> 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.
Shall I prepare a patch and remove it?
>
>> 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.
Only thinking of certain arches where its probably very unlikely that
people would even have wireless cards, nevermind actually use them for
install. I was just thinking it may make it smaller for floppies and
other images that may be tight on room.
>
> What is the problem with the solution discussed earlier: have netcfg just
> support wireless and wpasupplicant, but not fail if wpasupplicant isn't
> available?
>
The latest patches do this, just trying to not make the initrd's larger
for images that don't potentially need it is all. Problem is that netcfg
will still be slightly larger with the wpa code.
> 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.
no problem, just wondering.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAkhnvF4ACgkQV8GyuTwyskMw8QCgnFf28IoVKkK9TWuYMI9BD39q
boEAmgPe/vJsI5jNH7NqwDMg+ZtULgJC
=WY7N
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: