On Wed, 2006-03-15 at 02:02 +0100, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote: > 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. > This is completely off topic, but if you want to stick with ifup ifdown, check out my old patches here, https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=132661 They provide scanning ap's at boot and choosing the correct wireless config if your configs are name called ifcfg-ethx_essidname . I found it useful when switching from location to location back in the day. If you need help tweaking it mail me off the list. Jon -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
