[pkg-wpa-devel] What's wrong with the new configuration scheme, IMO

[Kel Modderman]

Felix Homann wrote:
>> there is already a bug open with a patch to wpa_supplicant to 
>> allow logging, maybe you or I could revive that thread on the hostap
>> mailing list?
>>     
>
> Would you kindly do so, you already know where the thread is.
>   

No I don't actually, we'd just have to remind Jouni that it is something 
desirable from his app, in a new thread.

>> This is something I battled with for a long time when I was "debating"
>> with the ubuntu crowd. The decision to make no option require quotes
>> caused a lot of time and effort to be spent on my part. I would love to
>> hear other opinions on this topic.
>>     
>
> At least, as I've mentioned earlier, it should be documented.
>   

Ok. Can you help at all with the actual writing of these docs?
 
>   
>> Well, the stanza provided by /e/n/i are appended to the ctrl_interface ,
>> which has already read in the network blocks from the .conf file.
>> Therefore, the conf file will always override.
>>     
>
> Put this into the documentation then.
>   

Ok. Again, I'd also ask for assistance with the actual wording etc.

>   
>>> I think mixing wpa-conf with other wpa-*-stanzas (apart from
>>> maybe wpa-action related stanzas) should lead to an error. [9]
>>>       
>> No, I disagree. There is no harm done here. Additionally, I can use the
>> conf file, but still create a new network via /e/n/i, and the new
>> network block can be used. There is no conflict or problem here that I
>> can see.
>>     
>
> Maybe not a real problem. But it's rather confusing.
>   

Well, i cannot comment on that, because it is not confusing to myself, 
because I wrote the damn thing :-) 

Please, some small words of advice to add to the docs?

>   
>>> Although the documentation claims that "With action scripts, you can
>>> develop your own advanced roaming configuration." I don't think you can.
>>>       
>> Yes it can, although it would require an advanced and highly customised
>> action script.
>>     
>
> Don't claim it, prove it! (Sure, it is possible somehow, but as mentioned in 
> my original mail the action script would have to more or less reimplement 
> ifupdown).
>   

I can only prove it with sufficient time and effort, neither of which I 
can afford in the very near future, unless you you pay my rent, and feed 
me for a couple of days :-) 

And why bother if there are plans already in place to make a "wifiroamd"?

Maybe someone else has an intricate or elegant action script they'd like 
to share?

>> Dbus interface in the new wpa_supplicant coupled with a dbus aware
>> dhcp-client would be a nice solution too ; )
>>     
>
> Maybe, but why not first look what can be done with tools that already exist? 
>
>
>   

It already exists, see the changelog of the upstream development (0.5) 
series of wpa_supplicant for more info. I am very tempted to begin 
packaging this beast.

Thanks, Kel.