On Tue, 2006-03-14 at 12:26 -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote: > Harald Hoyer (harald@xxxxxxxxxx) said: > > What do you think about the attached patch to ifup-wireless? Works for me :) > This should really be done in NM. Some of us would prefer to avoid being plagued by NM. It (wpa_supplicant) works just fine, independent of NM and I've just got it hooked in the bottom of the ifup scripts as they describe doing on the project site. So far, I haven't found a problem that NM solves for me and a few that it creates for me. NM and wpa_supplicant should each be optional and orthogonal to each other. > Bill Mike -- Michael H. Warfield (AI4NB) | (770) 985-6132 | mhw@xxxxxxxxxxxx /\/\|=mhw=|\/\/ | (678) 463-0932 | http://www.wittsend.com/mhw/ NIC whois: MHW9 | An optimist believes we live in the best of all PGP Key: 0xDF1DD471 | possible worlds. A pessimist is sure of it!
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
