FS#68019 - {netctl} Support for iwd alternative-to or instead-of wpa-supplicant
Attached to Project:
Arch Linux
Opened by Olav Seyfarth (nursoda) - Sunday, 27 September 2020, 21:00 GMT
Last edited by Jouke Witteveen (jouke) - Friday, 16 October 2020, 11:58 GMT
Opened by Olav Seyfarth (nursoda) - Sunday, 27 September 2020, 21:00 GMT
Last edited by Jouke Witteveen (jouke) - Friday, 16 October 2020, 11:58 GMT
|
Details
I like the lightness of netctl and the clean structure of
iwd but cannot not use both together. Would be nice if
netctl would allow the use of iwd instead of wpa_supplicant.
|
This task depends upon
Closed by Jouke Witteveen (jouke)
Friday, 16 October 2020, 11:58 GMT
Reason for closing: Won't implement
Additional comments about closing: Will reconsider implementing if iwd gains a more accommodating CLI.
Friday, 16 October 2020, 11:58 GMT
Reason for closing: Won't implement
Additional comments about closing: Will reconsider implementing if iwd gains a more accommodating CLI.
Comment by Jouke Witteveen (jouke) -
Friday, 09 October 2020, 10:33 GMT
Comment by
Olav Seyfarth (nursoda) - Friday,
09 October 2020, 17:23 GMT
What issues with your use of wpa_supplicant are you trying to
solve? I am not aware of any major issues with wpa_supplicant. The
structure of iwd is far less clean than you might think (certainly
compared to wpa_supplicant). In fact, iwd has grown into a partial
network manager instead of an implementation of wireless
protocols. This makes swapping wpa_supplicant for iwd in netctl
harder than it should be. In principle, I am in favor of offering
multiple backend choices, but unless iwd starts supporting a good
CLI and transient profiles, I cannot afford to put in the effort
to write the required support code.
Thanks for your swift answer! If that's the case, I fully agree
with you. You may close my request.