Hello, On 4 June 2013 18:06, Stefan Lippers-Hollmann <s....@gmx.de> wrote: > According to http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=708222#10 > you should have received it, at least it was sent.
Probably lost somewhere. >> I don't have or use wpa_supplicant.conf, I use wpa_supplicant together >> with ifupdown, and the hooks the package provides don't do that, while >> they obviously should. > O.k., I'll look into it - although all non-trivial[1] configuration > options require the additional syntax of wpa_supplicant.conf anyways… > [1] I don't see us adding hooks for pairwise/ group or wpa enterprise > options like key_mgmt, eap, phase2 or identity/ password/ ca_cert, Not true. All of those options you mentioned actually are supported. > at some point the additional options of using dedicated > configuration files for wpa_supplicant simply becomes required. That'd be horrible, as wpa_supplicant.conf is absolutely unusable compared to /e/n/i. Also, in that case I'll have to fork the scripts and take them over from your package. > Personally I consider the user/ group setting to be in that > general domain, but I can be convinced either way (changing the > defaults and/or adding an ifupdown hook), given convincing > arguments for it. This setting is *not* a general domain. Being able to manage wpa supplicant as the non-root "netdev" user is an important thing, and it should be enabled by default unless explicitly disabled. > Referring to your follow-up mail, yes, now that wheezy has been > released, we can use /run/ instead of /var/run/ directly (without > Breaks on initscripts (<< 2.88dsf-13.3~), etc.). I'm personally for declaring Breaks so the package can't break older not-fully-updated systems by accident. -- WBR, Andrew -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org