Hi Jonas, Thank you for your reply!
9 Feb 2025 22:15:50 Jonas Smedegaard <d...@jones.dk>: > Control: tag -1 +wontfix > > Quoting Matthieu Baerts (NGI0) (2025-02-09 19:56:27) >> iwd doesn't provide all the same features as the ones from >> wpa_supplicant, especially everything not related to the Wireless world, >> e.g. Ethernet authentication (bug#956457), or some more specific >> features like MACsec. >> >> wpa_supplicant and iwd can then be used in parallel, for different >> purposes. > > When you install only the iwd package, then you can also install the > wpasupplicant package, and carefully configure them to not step on each > others' toes. > > What the package network-manager-iwd offers is relieving the user of > manual configuration: It is ensured that iwd works together with > network-manager, but since network-manager recommends wpasupplicant, > it is not adequate to provide a network-manager config snippet, because > wpasupplicant will still be installed and will in its default > configuration interfere with the default configuration of iwd. I see, but in fact, thanks to the config file provided by this package, at the next reboot, NM will use iwd and leave wpasupplicant alone. So no conflicts. iwd is just one WiFi backend that is loaded after having read the config. NM will not try to use both at the same time. > Applying this patch would result in a package that offers a broken > system by default. To be honest, since I'm using iwd, I have always had both installed. At the beginning, I was even happy not to have uninstalled wpasupplicant, because I had a bug with it, and I was able to switch back to wpasupplicant easily. Imagine someone in the same situation, but not able to easily reinstall wpasupplicant... because it is no longer possible to connect to the WiFi network :) More seriously, I think it is even safer to keep both. I guess there are ways to have conflicts with both, but not used like that with NM being instructed which one to use. > Advanced users needing both iwd and wpasupplicant > already has the option of installing only iwd and then adding the > needed network-manager configuration snippet themselves, as part of > their larger configuration needs to tame the conflicting daemons. > > Thanks for the proposal, but I disagree with this one. (I think there is a small mixed-up in the changelog file, because it is saying the opposite, but that's a detail :) ) For the advanced users, maybe the patch I attached to bug#956457 could help. Still the ead doesn't cover all cases. Cheers, Matt
