Arch devs, I'm left wondering what purpose was served by not providing a pre-update note or post-install restoration of any existing .pacsave found? The new sample wpa_supplicant.conf is in /usr/share/doc/wpa_supplicant/wpa_supplicant.conf. If this was simply due to a pacman default action where /etc/wpa_supplicant/wpa_supplicant.conf was removed upstream, could a one-off 'post-install' script check for the original .pacsave and restore it? I know this is small-potatoes stuff, but I just wonder if in these instances, it may not be better to either provide pre-update notice or do a post-install script rather than relying on a post update action by the user? At least in the cases where you know up-front that existing functionality will be disabled by the upgrade. (which was apparent from the comment) Food for thought for the packagers. In these cases, I would think we would either want some type of pre-update note on archlinux.org (like for ttf-dejavu) or some post install restoration of the original config. I'll reiterate, at least for the cases where the packager 'knows' a broken config will result. Here, anyone relying on remote access via wpa_supplicant is left dead in the water unless they catch the comment as it scrolls by before rebooting. (yes they should review the comments, but with human nature what it is...) -- David C. Rankin, J.D.,P.E.
