Bug#694068: netcfg: Wireless connectivity present during an install but absent afterwards
Hello,
On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 4:31 PM, Brian Potkin <claremont102@gmail.com> wrote:
> Package: netcfg
> Version: 1.102
> Severity: important
> Tags: d-i
>
>
>
> I installed in expert mode over a wireless link from
>
> Debian GNU/Linux testing "Wheezy" - Official Snapshot i386 NETINST Binary-1 20121122-21:21
>
> This ISO has netcfg_1.102. Only "Standard system utilities" was selected
> as a task. Re-booted as instructed. No network! Checked the contents of
> /etc/network/interfaces. The only interface available is lo. I'm still
> in a state of shock. :)
>
> >From the netcfg changelog:
>
> * On Linux: Write a network-manager configuration file in perference
> to ifupdown if network-manager is found in the installed system.
> Configure wired networking with ifupdown if not. Do not configure
> wireless networking through ifupdown.
>
> and
>
> * Reword target_network_config template; do not ask the question.
>
> Not only am I deprived of network connectivity because I did not install
> network-manager or use a network cable, but this is done silently.
>
> The machine that Debian was put on is a desktop model and isn't going
> anywhere. Now I have try to recollect what to put in /e/n/i to restore
> the network connection. Also, the WPA passphrase is a machine generated
> 63 random characters. With gpm it's a snap to copy and paste. Except....
>
> If I'd installed to a laptop I might have wanted wpagui to deal with any
> roaming. Or network-manager for that matter. Having to start from
> scratch is tiresome.
>
> Anyone who used a network during an install would, in my opinion, most
> likely want it available afterwards. Please consider leaving it set up
> as configured by ifupdown when the install takes place as described
> above.
>
> Some discussion of the issue is in the thread starting at
>
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-boot/2012/09/msg00252.html
For most cases, I think not adding configuration for wireless in
/e/n/i is good, however for the kind a situations you described I
think the best solution would be to have the question asked, at least
with a low priority. If that would be the case, changing the
permissions of /e/n/i to 600 should also be considered.
Sorina
Reply to: