[pkg-wpa-devel] Bug#360387: Lowering severity

[Kel Modderman]

Felix Homann wrote:
> On Thursday 13 April 2006 14:26, you wrote:
>   
>> And the old system is not capable of doing what the new system is.
>>     
>
> That's absolutely right. I don't regard one as better than the other. Leave it 
> up to the user in which way he wants to use wpa_supplicant.
>   

Sure.


>   
>> Where was all this documentation to do with wpa_sup, unplugged and
>> guessnet/zeroconf when I first installed this package? 
>>     
>
> It's been all on the net even before wpasupplicant (the package) was created. 
> I've been using wpa_supplicant (upstream) with an init script and ifplugd 
> before then. 
>
> Maybe you should have asked people how they used the package before making 
> such a drastic decision. Asking for comments on DWN would have helped, and 
> maybe that should still be done before the package hits testing.
>   

By all means, please take the initiative to ask.
>   
>> Maybe then I 
>> would not have written a replacement framework for wpasupplicant.
>>     
>
> I don't think one can regard it as a replacement framework. It's just another 
> way to use wpa_supplicant. It has very good points but also shortcomings.
>   

Please, tell me facts, the actual shortcomings. I am not arguing for or 
against the init script, I simply do not care for it (it never did 
anything i wanted it to).

>  
>   
>> By all means, criticise the removal of the init script as much as you
>> want, but please do not start bagging the ifupdown mechanism without
>> factual evidence of brokenness/shortcomings.
>>     
>
> For shortcomings:
>
> 1. The main shortcoming is that upgrades are breaking working setups unless
> 	
> 	a. the old setup did not involve the init script and
> 	b. the old setup did not involve /etc/wpa_supplicant.conf
>   

This is nothing describing problems of the ifupdown code I wrote.

> The only reason I've heard so far for doing so is "not to confuse new users".
>
> 1. Do you have a solution for my challenge?
>
> 	http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-wpa-devel/2006-April/000195.html
>   


No, you have desires I do not have, I cannot satisfy them.

> 2. Reinhard Tartler had to admit that other setups can't be reproduced with 
> the new scheme:
> 	
> 	http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-wpa-devel/2006-April/000210.html
>   

He also suggested that all this effort put into complaining to this 
package, could be used to forge a new (fully and officially documented) 
package . . .

> I don't stick to the old setup, really. (That's why I tried hard to rework my 
> setup within the new scheme.) I actually like the new possibilities you've 
> introduced with the new scheme. It's great!
> But does it justify dropping the old approach? No, not at all!
>
> When will the changes actually go into testing? Do you really think it will 
> make most people happy?
>
> Finally let me point you to the Debian Social Contract: 
>
> "4. Our priorities are our users and free software 
> We will be guided by the needs of our users and the free software community. 
> We will place their interests first in our priorities."
>   

And I spent many hours/days working on the ifupdown code for 
wpasupplicant in the interest of debian users, so shoot me :-)

Thanks, Kel.