Bug#372208: [pkg-wpa-devel] Bug#372208: missing patches from wpasupplicant

[kelmo]

Soeren Sonnenburg wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-07-14 at 21:09 +1000, Kel Modderman wrote:
>   
>> reopen 372208
>> |retitle |372208 Orinoco and wpa_supplicant not working with WEP
>> thanks
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I have a bad feeling about the included patch and would like to drop it 
>> for a few reasons:
>>
>>    1. I currently experience problems with WEP and madwifi (using wext
>>       ioctl's), and have had difficulty debugging
>>     
>
> well does it help if you remove the patch ?
>   

That is hard to distinguish, this problem may be in the madwifi driver 
wext implementation, or in the supplicant itself. Diverging from 
mainstream makes asking them for support more difficult.

>   
>>    5. I don't want to spoil my debugging attempts with other developers
>>       of madwifi (or wpa_supplicant) while this subtle hack is included
>>     
>
> well but no one hinders you from building a local package w/o the patch.
>   

This has the possibility to effect a wide variety of users. I'd prefer 
if the Orinoco problem was discussed properly on the hostap mailing 
lists before we continue to carry along a hack of a patch and cause new 
problems for other people. I cannot do that well, because I don't have 
Orinoco hardware that craps itself with the pristine wpa_supplicant and WEP.


>> The patch is still contained in the source package, but inactive via 
>> debian/patches/00list.
>>
>> Comments on how to best proceed welcome.
>>     
>
> as w/o the patch wpasupplicant is rendered useless for orinoco users,
> you should prove that patch is faulty.
>   

It should be proven that the patch works absolutely correctly (without 
disrupting other modules), and as such, it should be known to be worthy 
of merging into upstream wpa_supplicant. I am not sure I can provide 
those details, therefore I'd prefer to have the same problems as 
upstream, and not different ones.

> however I would suggest you to publicly ask on the lists why this patch
> is not included (reasons...) and based on this decide to drop/keep
> it/come up with a newer patch.
>
>   

I can do that, however I am not a user of the Orinoco module, therefore 
I can only speculate on what is really the problem.

Kel.