On Sunday 12 October 2014 11.47:09 John Marino wrote: > The HOSTAPD and WPA_SUPPLICANT vendor branches weren't updated for over > 4 years until Alex Perrin helped us bump to version 2.1. Since then > versions 2.2 and 2.3 have been released. > > I've spent a few hours already trying to update it again, but it's quite > complex. The code changes rapidly and the DragonFly makefiles, > inherited from FreeBSD, support a bunch of custom build options with > variables set in the Make.conf file. > > I suspect nobody knew about these variables and thus don't use them, so > removing support for them would definitely make future maintenance > either. So it would be interesting to hear if anyone customizes > WPA_SUPPLICANT through make.conf.
I use WPA_SUPPLICANT on my laptop but didn't know about these variables. If removing the possibility to customize but keeping a default configuration that can cover most use cases simplifies the maintenance of WPA_SUPPLICANT in base, then I'm all in favor of it. > While pondering this, I began asking myself why WPA_SUPPLICANT and > HOSTAPD were in base at all. We could easily move this to dports and > add the packages as mandatory for nrelease. That would have the > following benefits: > * Easier to maintain > * More likely to have current version available > * Custom options would be available via normal ports dialog > * Base would contract On a laptop, I think wireless connection should be considered part of a base system since people mostly connect to networks this way. On the other hand, if we can have a guarantee that WPA_SUPPLICANT and HOSTAPD can be installed from the release ISO, I have nothing against removing these from base. The only thing I would be worried about is if an upgrade breaks it for a reason or another. > We could probably ease WPA_SUPPLICANT and HOSTAPD out gently. For > example, version 2.1 wouldn't build by default but it would still be in > base so Make.conf switch could activate it. After a release or two when > it's clear having in dports works well, we can remove it from base > completely. This seems like a reasonable plan. > What do people think? Is there some crucial reason why WPA_SUPPLICANT > and HOSTAPD have to remain in base? Feedback on this topic would be great! I won't say crucial but I think it's nice to have it in base. If, on the other hand it's very hard to maintain in base which means having really outdated WPA_SUPPLICANT in base from time to time, then I'm all in favor of moving it out of base. > Thanks, > John Robin
