Re: (solved) Re: wireless fail after stretch installation
I am subscribed, no need to CC please refrain.
On Tue, 6 Mar 2018, Ian Jackson wrote:
> bw writes ("Re: (solved) Re: wireless fail after stretch installation"):
> > I think the idea needs to be talked over a little better, because using
> > e/n/i for wireless by default after first boot has implications if the
> > user (who is clueless) later installs a desktop environment.
>
> If installing a desktop environment, after putting the wireless in
> /e/n/i, does not work, then that is a bug in the desktop environment,
> surely ?
OKay that's a good start to the discussion. But "not working isn;t
the only thing to consider. What about having TWO wireless devices
active, would that be possible under the proposed arrangement?
>
> In practice I would expect the config in /e/n/i to keep working
> because nowadays network-manager will ignore things in /e/n/i. The
> difficulty would only come if you
> - used the installer to install a bare system over wifi
> - later install network-manager or wicd
> - then expect the system to give you a gui prompt for new wifi
> networks, rather than expect to have to edit /e/n/i
>
> It would be possible for the n-m and wicd packages to spot when this
> is happening and offer to take over the interface. And I do think
> that in the absence of code to do that, it would be more important to
> make the barebones system work in the first place, than to improve the
> behaviour you later install n-m.
>
> (I'm not sure if what I say about wicd is right. I use n-m on
> machines I have where the user needs to switch between various network
> connections, wifi networks, etc.)
>
Yeah that's what I was getting at, would any cganges be necessary to the
gui doodads to make the proposal work at least as good as it does now?
> > I'd hate to see the bug tracker turned into a discussion forum though.
>
> The bug tyracker is precisely the right place to discuss how to solve
> a particular bug. So I have CC'd it.
That's your decision, I don't think it's smart to use bugtracker for
this.. It's going to waste time of people who have a lot better things to
do.
Reply to: