Hi Kel, on Mon, Jun 11, 2007 at 12:29:04 +1000, you wrote:
> This is the design of ifupdown. wpasupplicant package should not try to do > the > job of bridge-utils ifupdown hook. If the relationship between the two hooks > is not flexible then I see no point in assimilating partial operation of one > script into another. Bigger changes are required in this case. I do agree that the bridge-utils hooks have their logic kind of backwards in requiring to specify interfaces of the ports in the bridge interface stanza instead of allowing to specify the bridge in the stanza of the port interface and should be fixed. I planned to pursue that issue, too, anyway. The reason I did report this bug nonetheless is that, assuming the bridge-utils hooks were extended to have some bridge-* option to specify the bridge interface, that option and the wpa-bridge option would (have to) carry duplicate information and users had to make sure both stay in sync. So I thought, it would make sense to avoid that - much like one does not have to specify both madwifi-mode and wireless-mode options either. But I guess, again assuming bridge-utils hooks are extended to have that option, it would be ok for your to have the wpasupplicant hooks understand that option too and not require wpa-bridge? elmar -- .'"`. /"\ | :' : Elmar Hoffmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ASCII Ribbon Campaign \ / `. `' GPG key available via pgp.net against HTML email X `- & vCards / \
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
