[2012-10-18 15:15:02 -0400] Leonid Isaev: > On 10/16/2012 08:21 PM, Gaetan Bisson wrote: > > > >Since routers do not need netcfg any more than they do wpa_supplicant, > >with your reasoning, it should not be in base either... > > > > YMMV apparently, but in my experience a router needs: > (1) Some way to stick to the (usually creepy) ISP DHCP server, i.e. > keep retrying to obtain IP if the DHCP server doesn't respond. > (2) Bridging support. > > The former is solved with net-auto-wired (ifplugd is quite good), > while the latter -- with "bridge" profiles in netcfg. So without > netcfg I would have to write my own boot scripts. You may solve these problems with whatever piece of software you want. On my router, I simply use iptables' FORWARD chain. My point being that there are dozens of apps that do the same thing netcfg does; however wpa_supplicant is the only one that does what it does. > I understand your logic, but still think that wpa_supplicant should > be optional. Since there are no core images, anyone who wants to use > a machine as a station will install wpa_supplicant anyways over the > already working network... And how is this not different for netcfg? I understand you have use for one but not the other, but please try to be a little objective... -- Gaetan
