Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226544
Summary: Merge Review: wpa_supplicant Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: nobody@fedoraproject.org QAContact: fedora-package-review@redhat.com CC: dcbw@redhat.com
Fedora Merge Review: wpa_supplicant
http://cvs.fedora.redhat.com/viewcvs/devel/wpa_supplicant/ Initial Owner: dcbw@redhat.com
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Merge Review: wpa_supplicant
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226544
bugzilla@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Severity|normal |medium Priority|normal |medium Product|Fedora Extras |Fedora Version|devel |rawhide
------- Additional Comments From ron_f@web.de 2007-12-02 05:43 EST ------- I would suggest a few things:
At first please correct the license tag. Actually it is tagged as BSD but it's dual licensed GPLv2 and BSD. Take a look into the README.
Second thing is to take the latest stable release of wpa_supplicant (actually 0.58). You can also update the madwifi-headers to the latest release, but this isn't essential.
Furthermore I think it's worse to patch this software in so many ways it is actually done. The problem that wpa_supplicant isn't working correctly in Fedora 7 and 8 does not come from wpa_supplicant itself, it's a major issue of DBUS in the kernel. It would be smarter to fix this issue then to patch a software to work with other buggy software.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Merge Review: wpa_supplicant
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226544
rpm@greysector.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |rpm@greysector.net
------- Additional Comments From rpm@greysector.net 2007-12-02 06:14 EST ------- (In reply to comment #1)
Furthermore I think it's worse to patch this software in so many ways it is actually done. The problem that wpa_supplicant isn't working correctly in Fedora 7 and 8 does not come from wpa_supplicant itself, it's a major issue of DBUS in the kernel. It would be smarter to fix this issue then to patch a software to work with other buggy software.
Funny, it's been working correctly for me ever since I started using it. Unlike NetworkManager, wpa_supplicant alone works fine with my WPA2+radius/AES/TLS cert network at work.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Merge Review: wpa_supplicant
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226544
------- Additional Comments From ron_f@web.de 2007-12-02 06:22 EST ------- (In reply to comment #2)
Funny, it's been working correctly for me ever since I started using it.
Unlike
NetworkManager, wpa_supplicant alone works fine with my WPA2+radius/AES/TLS
cert
network at work.
Unfortunately not for everyone as you can see on a rising amount of Bugzilla entries for wpa_supplicant since some time.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Merge Review: wpa_supplicant
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226544
------- Additional Comments From ron_f@web.de 2007-12-02 16:52 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=275141) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=275141&action=view) SPEC for latest wpa_supplicant
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Merge Review: wpa_supplicant
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226544
------- Additional Comments From ron_f@web.de 2007-12-02 16:54 EST ------- I have created a SPEC file for the latest development release of wpa_supplicant based on the FC6 package (see above).
This package actually runs with FC6 and Kernel 2.6.22. All changes since the original file are summed up and listed in the changelog. I know not everything is correct with this package (referring to rpmlint) but it works so far for me. Former versions of this SPEC worked also (running from FC6 till F8, also CentOS 5).
A helping hand is needed with the license tag and some other warning by rpmlint.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Merge Review: wpa_supplicant
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226544
------- Additional Comments From dcbw@redhat.com 2007-12-03 09:53 EST ------- The license _MUST_ be BSD because wpa_supplicant links to OpenSSL and does not include the OpenSSL exception to the GPL license.
It does not make sense to update the F8 to wpa_supplicant 0.5.8 until there bug fixes that make sense, which when I reviewed the 0.5.7 -> 0.5.8 diff/changelog 3 weeks ago, there weren't. When more of the Fedora patches against wpa_supplicant get usptream, then we'll likely rev wpa_supplicant just to get rid of the delta.
F9 will get the latest wpa_supplicant (0.6.x) when the patches have been ported to 0.6.x and pushed up to Jouni upstream.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226544
Peter Lemenkov lemenkov@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |lemenkov@gmail.com AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |lemenkov@gmail.com Flag| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #7 from Peter Lemenkov lemenkov@gmail.com 2008-12-11 02:00:45 EDT --- I'll review it.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226544
--- Comment #8 from ronny.fischer@taunusstein.net 2008-12-11 04:59:49 EDT --- Meanwhile this entry is a year old, but the latest attached spec file has only changed in minor things (for my personal use). This includes an update to the latest development release 0.6.6 (it works) and an update of the madwifi headers to the latest subversion trunk.
I'd like to make the suggestion to ask the developer for support for the ath5k and ath9k driver, since it seems to me that those drivers don't work directly with the wpa_supplicant but only in connection with NetworkManager.
Thx
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226544
--- Comment #9 from Dan Williams dcbw@redhat.com 2008-12-11 10:17:25 EDT --- (In reply to comment #8)
Meanwhile this entry is a year old, but the latest attached spec file has only changed in minor things (for my personal use). This includes an update to the latest development release 0.6.6 (it works) and an update of the madwifi headers to the latest subversion trunk.
The madwifi headers are no longer required as the ath5k and ath9k drivers cover that hardware, and are in the upstream kernel already.
I'd like to make the suggestion to ask the developer for support for the ath5k and ath9k driver, since it seems to me that those drivers don't work directly with the wpa_supplicant but only in connection with NetworkManager.
NetworkManager uses wpa_supplicant for all connections, so if it works in NM, it works in plain wpa_supplicant too. I've successfully used wpa_supplicant with ath5k hardware just fine...
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226544
--- Comment #10 from Peter Lemenkov lemenkov@gmail.com 2008-12-11 15:11:39 EDT --- Remarks:
* Latest development version is 0.6.6 - consider upgrading. * %install section needs some cleanups: ** installation should preserve timestamps (e.g. %install should be invoked with -p key) ** no need to explicitly create directories - you should use key -D ** I don't see the need to cleanup something in $BUILD/%{name}-%{version}/%{name}/doc/
E.g. I propose you to shorten install section up to
========================================
%install rm -rf %{buildroot}
# init scripts install -D -p -m 0755 %{SOURCE3} %{buildroot}/%{_sysconfdir}/rc.d/init.d/%{name} install -D -p -m 0644 %{SOURCE4} %{buildroot}/%{_sysconfdir}/sysconfig/%{name} install -D -p -m 0644 %{SOURCE6} %{buildroot}/%{_sysconfdir}/logrotate.d/%{name}
# config install -D -p -m 0600 %{SOURCE2} %{buildroot}/%{_sysconfdir}/%{name}/%{name}.conf
# binary install -d %{buildroot}/%{_sbindir} install -m 0755 %{name}/wpa_passphrase %{buildroot}/%{_sbindir} install -m 0755 %{name}/wpa_cli %{buildroot}/%{_sbindir} install -m 0755 %{name}/wpa_supplicant %{buildroot}/%{_sbindir} install -D -p -m 0644 %{name}/dbus-wpa_supplicant.conf %{buildroot}/%{_sysconfdir}/dbus-1/system.d/wpa_supplicant.conf install -D -p -m 0644 %{name}/dbus-wpa_supplicant.service %{buildroot}/%{_datadir}/dbus-1/system-services/fi.epitest.hostap.WPASupplicant.service
# gui install -D -p -m 0755 %{name}/wpa_gui/wpa_gui %{buildroot}/%{_bindir}/wpa_gui
# running mkdir -p %{buildroot}/%{_localstatedir}/run/%{name}
# man pages install -d %{buildroot}%{_mandir}/man{5,8} install -m 0644 %{name}/doc/docbook/*.8 %{buildroot}%{_mandir}/man8 install -m 0644 %{name}/doc/docbook/*.5 %{buildroot}%{_mandir}/man5
========================================
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226544
--- Comment #11 from Peter Lemenkov lemenkov@gmail.com 2008-12-11 15:13:42 EDT --- http://peter.fedorapeople.org/wpa_supplicant.spec
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226544
--- Comment #12 from Peter Lemenkov lemenkov@gmail.com 2008-12-11 15:18:48 EDT --- rpmlint:
[petro@Sulaco ppc]$ rpmlint wpa_supplicant-* wpa_supplicant.ppc: E: non-readable /etc/wpa_supplicant/wpa_supplicant.conf 0600 wpa_supplicant.ppc: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/wpa_supplicant-0.6.4/examples/wpas-test.py wpa_supplicant.ppc: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/dbus-1/system.d/wpa_supplicant.conf wpa_supplicant.ppc: W: doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/wpa_supplicant-0.6.4/examples/wpas-test.py /usr/bin/python wpa_supplicant.ppc: W: incoherent-subsys /etc/rc.d/init.d/wpa_supplicant $prog wpa_supplicant-gui.ppc: W: no-documentation 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 5 warnings. [petro@Sulaco ppc]$
I think that issue non-conffile-in-etc should be fixed, while other messages may be ignored.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226544
--- Comment #13 from Peter Lemenkov lemenkov@gmail.com 2008-12-11 15:24:08 EDT --- Another one note - should we predefine -Dwext in DRIVERS section of wpa_supplicant.sysconfig? I think that's a generally good idea. E.g. change DRIVERS="" to DRIVERS="-Dwext" in the wpa_supplicant.sysconfig .
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226544
--- Comment #14 from Ronny Fischer ronny.fischer@taunusstein.net 2008-12-11 16:01:52 EDT --- (In reply to comment #13)
Another one note - should we predefine -Dwext in DRIVERS section of wpa_supplicant.sysconfig? I think that's a generally good idea. E.g. change DRIVERS="" to DRIVERS="-Dwext" in the wpa_supplicant.sysconfig .
That would be a good idea since most of the drivers use wireless extensions.
A question: Are those new patches really necessary? Since I build my own wpa_supplicant based on the elder spec file, I never experienced any of the mentioned problems in regular operations.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226544
--- Comment #15 from Peter Lemenkov lemenkov@gmail.com 2008-12-11 16:24:48 EDT --- The right question is why they still not in the upstream :)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226544
Dan Williams dcbw@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |needinfo?(lemenkov@gmail.co | |m)
--- Comment #16 from Dan Williams dcbw@redhat.com 2008-12-11 16:29:26 EDT --- (In reply to comment #15)
The right question is why they still not in the upstream :)
Which specific patches do you mean?
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226544
--- Comment #17 from Dan Williams dcbw@redhat.com 2008-12-11 16:33:59 EDT --- wpa_supplicant-0.5.10-dbus-service-file.patch :: disto specific customization for log paths, not suitable for upstream
wpa_supplicant-0.5.7-flush-debug-output.patch :: ensures that debug output gets flushed immediately to help diagnose driver bugs, not suitable for upstream
wpa_supplicant-0.5.7-qmake-location.patch :: build fix for Fedora, not suitable for upstream
wpa_supplicant-0.5.7-use-IW_ENCODE_TEMP.patch :: have already discussed this with upstream and Jouni wants more information about it
wpa_supplicant-0.6.4-handle-invalid-ies.patch :: backport
wpa_supplicant-0.6.4-scan-fixes-1.patch :: backport
wpa_supplicant-0.6.4-scan-fixes-2.patch :: backport
wpa_supplicant-0.6.4-set-mode-handler.patch :: backport
wpa_supplicant-0.6.4-validate-wext-event.patch :: backport
wpa_supplicant-assoc-timeout.patch :: distro specific customization and not suitable for upstream, works around busted drivers
I've aggressively upstreamed patches from wpa_supplicant for a long time. Some patches never will go upstream, but there's only one patch here (IW_ENCODE_TEMP) that's a candidate for upstreaming.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226544
--- Comment #18 from Dan Williams dcbw@redhat.com 2008-12-11 16:36:25 EDT --- Also note that many of the patches marked "backport" above were only made available in the quite recent 0.6.6 release on November 23rd.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226544
Peter Lemenkov lemenkov@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|needinfo?(lemenkov@gmail.co | |m) |
--- Comment #19 from Peter Lemenkov lemenkov@gmail.com 2008-12-11 16:42:04 EDT --- (In reply to comment #17)
[sorry, skipped]
These comments should be added to spec-file. See
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#All_patches_should_have_...
I've aggressively upstreamed patches from wpa_supplicant for a long time. Some patches never will go upstream, but there's only one patch here (IW_ENCODE_TEMP) that's a candidate for upstreaming.
(In reply to comment #18)
Also note that many of the patches marked "backport" above were only made available in the quite recent 0.6.6 release on November 23rd.
Ok, understood.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226544
--- Comment #20 from Ronny Fischer ronny.fischer@taunusstein.net 2008-12-12 02:22:45 EDT --- Ok, I see those patches are necessary but at least the wpa_supplicant-0.5.7-qmake-location.patch could be (or become) obsolete since wpa_supplicant is able to use either qt3 or qt4 for the gui and the qt4 installation has a default installation path in Fedora. I guess for long time reasons qt4 should be used.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226544
Jussi Lehtola jussi.lehtola@iki.fi changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226544
--- Comment #21 from Peter Lemenkov lemenkov@gmail.com 2010-10-07 08:31:07 EDT --- Sorry for the delay. I'm returning to this ticket again.
Ok, I applied proposed cosmetic changes in comment #10 to rawhide branch. So the remaining issues are:
- Adding DRIVERS="-Dwext" to sysconfig file - Why not to update to latest stable 0.6.10?
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org