On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 03:10:15AM +0300, Greg Bouzakis wrote:
> 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
IMHO, wpa_supplicant should no more be in base than should linux-atm,
brltty, or any of the firmware packages, e.g. ipw2100-fw. In essence,
it's a package for the support of certain hardware / network
configurations (albeit, widely used ones) that aren't handled directly
by the kernel.
--
David J. Haines
djhaines@xxxxxxx
