On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 09:13:28 am Elmar Hoffmann wrote: > 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?
That would be nicer than attempting to manage the bridged interfaces over-simplisticly by the wpasupplicant hook alone. Thanks, Kel. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
