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

Re: Is there an equivalent of wireless-xxxx using iw rather then iwconfig

On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 17:17:38 +0100, David Goodenough wrote:

> On Wednesday 26 Oct 2011, Camaleón wrote:


>> Let me ask you again... what specific setup configuration options are
>> you missing from the current available tools to setting up your
>> wireless adapters in Debian?

> It is possible to hand code, using the explicit iw commands, all the
> things I want to do, BUT it is long winded, difficult to read, and if
> for instance I change an interface name (say wlan0 to wlan1) I have to
> change all the references in the commands, and Sods Law says I will miss
> one.

AFAICT, there is the option for using static names to define the network 
interfaces, by means of udev rules, so you don't have to depend on the 
"wlan0" or "wlanx" naming.

> The wireless_XXX aliases provide a shorthand and also hide things like
> making sure the right interface is passed to the right command.  I am
> looking for an equivalient which allows me to use the new facilities in
> the iw command (such as configuring mesh networks) which can not be
> encoded using either iwconfig or wireless_XXX.

I still don't get the point for your request :-)

You want to use "wireless_XXX" and you can use them, so why are you 
worried about? I suppose at the time these tools are not available 
anymore there will be a convenient replacement.

And now you say you are looking for an "equivalent" option for something 
that currently cannot be done with the wireless-tools utilities. Then 
you're not looking for an "equivalent" but for a way to do "something" 
with "iw" tools. It's okay but that's not what I understood for your 
first post...

> Its not that it can not be done, it is that the "Debian Way(TM)" seems
> to be to use these aliases (and the wireless_XXX one is not the only
> one) and there is no alias (that I can find) that uses iw and therefore
> enables the facilities that I am trying to define.

Mmm, I don't want to be stubborn but a concrete example will help a lot 
to find a way to do what you want to get ;-)



Reply to: