Discussion: Moving WPA_SUPPLICANT out of base and into dports
robin.hahling at gw-computing.net
Sun Oct 12 04:32:34 PDT 2014
On Sunday 12 October 2014 11.47:09 John Marino wrote:
> The HOSTAPD and WPA_SUPPLICANT vendor branches weren't updated for over
> 4 years until Alex Perrin helped us bump to version 2.1. Since then
> versions 2.2 and 2.3 have been released.
> I've spent a few hours already trying to update it again, but it's quite
> complex. The code changes rapidly and the DragonFly makefiles,
> inherited from FreeBSD, support a bunch of custom build options with
> variables set in the Make.conf file.
> I suspect nobody knew about these variables and thus don't use them, so
> removing support for them would definitely make future maintenance
> either. So it would be interesting to hear if anyone customizes
> WPA_SUPPLICANT through make.conf.
I use WPA_SUPPLICANT on my laptop but didn't know about these variables.
If removing the possibility to customize but keeping a default configuration
that can cover most use cases simplifies the maintenance of WPA_SUPPLICANT in
base, then I'm all in favor of it.
> While pondering this, I began asking myself why WPA_SUPPLICANT and
> HOSTAPD were in base at all. We could easily move this to dports and
> add the packages as mandatory for nrelease. That would have the
> following benefits:
> * Easier to maintain
> * More likely to have current version available
> * Custom options would be available via normal ports dialog
> * Base would contract
On a laptop, I think wireless connection should be considered part of a base
system since people mostly connect to networks this way. On the other hand, if
we can have a guarantee that WPA_SUPPLICANT and HOSTAPD can be installed from
the release ISO, I have nothing against removing these from base. The only
thing I would be worried about is if an upgrade breaks it for a reason or
> We could probably ease WPA_SUPPLICANT and HOSTAPD out gently. For
> example, version 2.1 wouldn't build by default but it would still be in
> base so Make.conf switch could activate it. After a release or two when
> it's clear having in dports works well, we can remove it from base
This seems like a reasonable plan.
> What do people think? Is there some crucial reason why WPA_SUPPLICANT
> and HOSTAPD have to remain in base? Feedback on this topic would be great!
I won't say crucial but I think it's nice to have it in base. If, on the other
hand it's very hard to maintain in base which means having really outdated
WPA_SUPPLICANT in base from time to time, then I'm all in favor of moving it
out of base.
More information about the Users