On Sat, 9 Feb 2019 at 09:19, Thomas Bächler <thomas.baech...@gmx.de> wrote: > > Am 8. Februar 2019 20:17:52 MEZ schrieb Jouke Witteveen > <j.wittev...@gmail.com>: > >On Fri, Feb 8, 2019 at 3:36 PM Emil Velikov <emil.l.veli...@gmail.com> > >wrote: > >> > >> On Thu, 7 Feb 2019 at 14:50, Jouke Witteveen via arch-projects > >> <arch-projects@archlinux.org> wrote: > >> > > >> > The same functionality is provided by wpa_supplicant, so we do not > >need > >> > an extra and Arch Linux specific dependency. > >> > >> The introduction of wpa_actiond [1] hints there are issues with > >wpa_cli. Namely: > >> - partial or missing logging capabilities > >> - race conditions > >> > >> Sadly I don't know much more about this. It'll be great if can use > >> wpa_cli, while not introducing new issues. > >> > >> -Emil > >> > >> [1] > >https://git.archlinux.org/wpa_actiond.git/commit/?id=c5c587771403d31ab4538e1c756e0b88a4641a92 > > > >Thanks! This detective work is highly appreciated! For some reason I > >had assumed wpa_cli would have gained this functionality only after > >wpa_actiond came into existence. This couldn't really explain why both > >use the same parameter names though... > >I wonder if the issues with wpa_cli have been taken upstream. In my > >experience, the maintainer of wpa_supplicant is very pleasant to work > >with. > > > >autowifi and, later, wpa_actiond are important parts of the history of > >netctl, but I tend to give over 10 years of development in > >wpa_supplicant the benefit of the doubt. This means I would like to > >try to move away from wpa_actiond anyway. Currently, except from those > >using wpa_actiond directly, I think netctl is the only user of > >wpa_actiond. > > > >@Thomas: do you have an oppinion in these matters? > > > >Thanks, > >- Jouke > > I honestly don't remember why wpa_cli was insufficient at the time and why I > wrote wpa_actiond. That must have been way over 10 years ago. I just remember > that my first attempt used wpa_cli, and something obvious was missing.
I'd imagine Jouke has been running the patch for a bit and has not seen serious issues. Guess we could merge this and consider any issues as/if they arise? If it were me I would have kept the cosmetics separate, but it's nothing major so. - s/wpa_config/WPAConfigFile/ - RFKill && -> if RFKill; then Thanks for the work guys. -Emil