Arch Linux

iwd 1.0 just got released, it has a stable API for networkmanager now, I think we can finally optdep wpa_supplicant.

I suggest to add provides="wireless-configuration" wpa_supplicant and to iwd and make conman, nm and netctl depend on that virtual pkg. Maybe add configuration suggestions to nm/conman/netctl where choice has to be done (config files or install msg).

@Andreas
I am not sure if netctl support iwd. Last time when i checked this, it doesn't.
Moreover I am not sure if patches for netctl would be necessary, because I see a need for netctl + wpa_supplicant, but iwd has iwctl.

NetworkManager does not support priorities for backends, meaning that unless it's told to use iwd, it always uses wpa_supplicant, while with iwd enabled, wpa_supplicant code path is never used. Shipping iwd with snippet configuring NM to use it is also wrong as someone may want to have both iwd and wpa_supplicant installed, but keep using the latter in NM.

In other words, I don't see how it's supposed to work with current implementation in NetworkManager.

I've discussed this with the iwd devs and there is even another reason why networkmanager with iwd is problematic:

networkmanager doesn't support 802.1x, when iwd as backend is being used and according to one of the iwd devs it's uncertain if it ever will.
The iwd devs think, that iwd should have the control over such 802.1x profiles and that iwd should store them. The nm devs on the other hand disagree with this decision.
A fix would be to generate such iwd 802.1x profiles (but the nm gui is not able to do this right now).

Therefore, despite my first comment on this issue, using iwd as backend for nm would be clearly a regression.

Dear participants,

has the situation changed meanwhile?

Maybe it could be left up to the user. Ask them which to install but have wpa_supplicant be the default option?

Maybe wpa_supplicant and iwd could provide "supplicant" with defaulting to wpa_supplicant and NM depending on it? Users who want the "default" experience will install wpa_supplicant and others which like to use iwd could uninstall wpa_supplicant without issues.

There's no way to set up a "default" unless the depend has the exact name of a package, and "iwd" cannot sensibly provide "wpa_supplicant".

just a little update: with v1.36 it is now possible to select the default Wi-Fi backend (wpa_supplicant or IWD) at build-time.

We should actually implement this now:

https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/NetworkManager/NetworkManager/-/blob/main/configure.ac#L248
This seems to be no problem for FC: https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/NetworkManager/NetworkManager/-/blob/main/configure.ac#L248

Since pacman doesn't support to choose directly between wpa_supplicant OR iwd I'm for going with some virtual provider "wireless-supplicant" or similar.

I don't think anything relevant has changed. If we set up the deps as suggested and the user happens to choose iwd, NM will not work until it is explicitly configured to use iwd.

What's wrong with forcing the user to adopt their system if they choose the alphabetical no.1 option?
We can still drop some pre_ or post_install msg to help choosing the right one.

This is an automated comment as this bug is open for more then 2 years. Please reply if you still experience this bug otherwise this issue will be closed after 1 month.

Please make it happen.