On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 08:59, Thomas Bächler <tho...@archlinux.org> wrote: > Am 28.02.2012 00:31, schrieb Jouke Witteveen: >> Dear Thomas and the rest, >> >> A few of us have been looking at the netcfg code lately. One thing >> that came to light was that FS#24599 is actualy a wpa_actiond bug, so, >> Thomas, could you take it upon you? > > I looked into it shortly, the last comment is correct.
That comment was mine. I wondered whether there was a reason to look at occurrences of ']'. > >> Furthermore, Remy's development tree held 8 bugfixes and some >> improvements, which I augmented with another 5.5 bugfixes and 3.5 >> added features (the half one being a syntax to reconnect based on an >> interface, as a fix for FS#28196). >> >> I would like to see someone package this work, that is available at >> https://github.com/joukewitteveen/netcfg >> and push a package to the (testing?) repository. >> >> I am not requesting maintainership of the code (Alfredo Palhares is >> after it too), but I am willing to be the maintainer. My request is >> just to move netcfg forward. > > Both of you, I'd like to point your attention towards > https://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-projects/2011-December/002254.html > if you haven't merged it already (the patch is also on my github). That one was merged in 7ba4 last week :-). > > Now, we need to make one of you the maintainer of the official netcfg > tree on al.org. I don't know which one of you, so you two fight it out > and tell us the result. Or, anyone else on this list, choose. I don't > care, as long as I don't have to decide. > Will do. Thanks!
