Leonid Isaev wrote:
> On 10/16/2012 08:21 PM, Gaetan Bisson wrote:
>> [2012-10-16 10:41:09 -0500] Leonid Isaev:
>>> I fully support having netcfg in base (and as a default
network backend
>>> in arch) because it is far better than the alternatives :)
I don't think
>>> that wpa_supplicant/crda belongs in base (for instance
routers don't
>>> need wpa_supplicant but may require hostapd), but iw (and
iproute2)
>>> definitely has to go there as it provides some hardware
management
>>> capabilities.
>>
>> 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.
>
>> If we stick to the definition that the base group should
contain
>> everything needed too boot up a minimal system and connect
it to the
>> network, then I do not see how you can consider
wpa_supplicant optional.
>>
>
> 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...
The idea at some point [0] was to make
base-{networking,wireless-networking} groups. I dont know if
that can be considered today, but this is more or less the
idea of why i had requested for wpa_supplicant to leave base
[1] and why i have requested the same for ppp [2].
If this old concept, or a similar one is implemented
personally even though wpa_supplicant is essential for me as
well, i see no reason to have any of those in base.
On the other hand by having netcfg in the base group you
essentially provide support for both.
BTW i dont understand the reason why the base group has
anything to do with archiso, since archiso adds and will
probably be always adding packages on top of the base group
from all the other repos in order to provide additional
functionality. Argumenting that foo should be in base cause
we
want support for it in the install media is no argument at
all.
[0]: https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/12890
[1]: https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/22482
[2]: https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/22480
