[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

wpasupplicant for all wireless ops? (was: Re: [Netcfg-Add-WPA-Support 0/3])

On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 03:34:59PM +0900, Glenn Saberton wrote:
> Here's the patchset again against current netcfg. I haven't actually added
> anything to the patchset since the last time I submitted it for consideration.
> I intend on also using wpasupplicant for setting the wep key which in my eyes
> simplifies things by removing the current wep function. We can also use it for
> setting the essid for an open ap which would hopefully work around the issue 
> outlined below.

Actually, the more I think of it, the more I think it would be the
best way to go.  And I think such change should be made quite early in
the release cycle…

Some personal rationale for pushing wpasupplicant for all use cases:
 * WPA wireless networks are more and more common these days. Recent
   applicances shipped by network providers now provide WPA by default
   in France. So if we want to allow WPA wireless networks to be used
   for netinsts, we have to include wpasupplicant in the initrd in any
 * NetworkManager is used on most distros (and Debian as well) for
   desktop installations. NetworkManager always use wpasupplicant for
   interaction with wireless networks so now both wpasupplicant and the
   drivers have been quite tested.

Getting rid of our custom code dealing with the wireless sounds to favor
more commonly used software sounds like a desirable goal to me.

What do other thinks?

Glenn, I have a vague memory of you sending a patch that did that.
I probably should apoligies on changing my mind about this now, but does
this patch still apply?

I am still willing to review Glenn's work, but I would rather only
review the wpasupplicant way if others agree.

Jérémy Bobbio                        .''`. 
lunar@debian.org                    : :Ⓐ  :  # apt-get install anarchism
                                    `. `'` 

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: