[arch-general] [arch-dev-public] request for dbus in core

[Paulo Matias]

Hi,

On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 4:16 AM, James Rayner <iphitus at iphitus.org> wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 12, 2008 at 3:53 PM, Paulo Matias <matias at archlinux-br.org> wrote:
>> On Sun, Oct 12, 2008 at 2:49 AM, James Rayner <iphitus at iphitus.org> wrote:
>>> my support for [core], as an upcoming netcfg version will take
>>> advantage of the wpa_supplicant dbus interface.
>>>
>>
>> Please avoid using dbus in netcfg. I like it because it's clean, KISS,
>> and uses only default/native stuff. I can help integrating with UNIX
>> domain sockets or UDP sockets if needed.
>>
>> [1] http://hostap.epitest.fi/wpa_supplicant/devel/wpa__ctrl_8c-source.html
>
> It wasn't an immediate decision to use dbus and I did evaluate other
> options such as the aforementioned sockets interface.
>
> dbus is just as "default/native" if not more "native" than a custom
> control interface. These days, you'll struggle to find a system out
> there which doesnt at least have dbus installed. I picked the dbus
> setup as it's quicker for me to implement, easier to maintain in the
> long term, more KISS and easily the future for linux wireless
> configuration.
>

I agree the dbus interface is quicker to implement. This is why I
offered help to implement the socket stuff if needed. Anyway, it would
not take a lot of time, as the /dev/udp bash interface could be used.

But if you think dbus is the future for Linux wireless configuration,
and that wpa_supplicant would let another control interfaces
unmaintained or even drop them, then it is really better to use dbus
since now.

> dbus should be available in 2.2 and default in 3.0. In 3.0 the old
> interface will not be removed, instead renamed to "wireless-old" and
> so available for those who dislike dbus for some odd reason.
>

Great.

How will the new wireless interface be configured? DAEMONS=(dbus
net-profiles) for those who want it being configured at boot up?

> If you want to implement a sockets interface, go for it. netcfg is
> designed to be modular, allowing a range of different interfaces
> implemented in any programming language (more in 2.2).
>

Yes, I know. It's very a good job you had done in netcfg. It was very
easy to implement a modified "wireless-ral" interface when I needed
some "iwpriv" magic to use WPA in my ralink card, in the times I had
to use rt73-cvs :)

Thanks for the quick response and please don't understand me bad. I
really appreciate your work, and I was only willing to help.

If I was too boring, please forgive this purism and my fears. The
first thing that had came to my mind when I read the "dbus in [core]"
message was a lot of another services (like hal) being included after
that, but no, this is not going to happen.


Best regards,

Paulo Matias