On Wednesday, 15 March 2006 at 00:02, Michael H. Warfield wrote:
> 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.
+1
Personally, I find NM quite troublesome and the named dependency puts me
off immensely. Why the hell do I need to install a domain name server(!)
on a laptop? I'm sticking with ifup/ifdown for the time being.
Regards,
R.
--
RPM repository for Fedora Core http://rpm.greysector.net/
mpg321, xmp, faad2, lame, mad, *mplayer*, rdesktop, tin, xvid, mks, mutt
"Faith manages."
-- Delenn to Lennier in Babylon 5:"Confessions and Lamentations"
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
