[2012-10-18 15:15:02 -0400] Leonid Isaev:
On 10/16/2012 08:21 PM, Gaetan Bisson wrote:
Since routers do not need netcfg any more than they do wpa_supplicant, with your reasoning, it should not be in base either...
YMMV apparently, but in my experience a router needs: (1) Some way to stick to the (usually creepy) ISP DHCP server, i.e. keep retrying to obtain IP if the DHCP server doesn't respond. (2) Bridging support.
The former is solved with net-auto-wired (ifplugd is quite good), while the latter -- with "bridge" profiles in netcfg. So without netcfg I would have to write my own boot scripts.
You may solve these problems with whatever piece of software you want. On my router, I simply use iptables' FORWARD chain. My point being that there are dozens of apps that do the same thing netcfg does; however wpa_supplicant is the only one that does what it does.
I understand your logic, but still think that wpa_supplicant should be optional. Since there are no core images, anyone who wants to use a machine as a station will install wpa_supplicant anyways over the already working network...
And how is this not different for netcfg? I understand you have use for one but not the other, but please try to be a little objective... -- Gaetan