Re: (solved) Re: wireless fail after stretch installation
bw writes ("Re: (solved) Re: wireless fail after stretch installation"):
> On Tue, 6 Mar 2018, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > I have read the bug logs and Trent Buck's message here
> > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=694068#47
> > seems to suggest a way forward.
> > Perhaps someone would care to write and test a patch to d-i's network
> > configuration arrangements, to implement Trent's suggestion ? I think
> > that the people who don't have network-manager would probably prefer
> > this to use ifupdown, and making a whole new udeb will be work, so
> > Trent's second suggestion seems sensible.
> Second suggestion being networkd preferred over ifupdown? yeah, I had
> thought this was going to come up eventually. State it in plain english,
> if ifupdown is to be replaced, then let's get on with it.
I appreciate that you have reason for your paranoia, but in this case
it is entirely misplaced. You have misunderstood me. I meant this
part of Trent's suggestion:
| If you don't want to udebify wpa_passphrase, you can do it by hand:
| cat >"/etc/wpa_supplicant/wpa_supplicant-$iface.conf" <<EOF
which is part of a suggestion of how to configure ifupdown in the
> I think the whole thread is unfortunate, because it was started by a
> person (Long Wind) who earlier posted a request for help about how to hack
> into their neighbor's wireless network to steal internet service.
"Whatever". Now, this thread is about Bug#694068. Which is annoying
a number of people and should be fixed.
> I'm really shocked that anybody would try and make wireless easier to use
> for thieves. They should be shunned, not used as example clueless users
> to implement fixes or new features.
I struggle to see how fixing #694068 is about helping "thieves".
Ian Jackson <email@example.com> These opinions are my own.
If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.