On Wed, 2008-11-19 at 11:01 -0500, John W. Linville wrote: > Is there some way we could take that into account? I'm sure there > are users who would prefer to have an AP (i.e. their laptop) that > can't support PS clients rather than not having an AP at all. That's a good question. The distinction here is between empowering users to do the wrong thing (AP without proper PS support) and enforcing the right thing (with the consequence of complete loss of AP functionality). The issue I see here is that users will see "ohh shiny, AP support" without knowing that it doesn't actually really support it. Not sure which side of the line we want to stand on, I prefer the correctness side but I can see arguments for the other side, would just like to have users know. Maybe we could have some way to tell hostapd this and then have hostapd print a huge warning about it when started up? johannes
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
