From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Aug 20 08:27:50 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42AF9106566B for ; Mon, 20 Aug 2012 08:27:50 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd-net@herveybayaustralia.com.au) Received: from mail.unitedinsong.com.au (mail.unitedinsong.com.au [150.101.178.33]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E80EC8FC0C for ; Mon, 20 Aug 2012 08:27:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from laptop3.herveybayaustralia.com.au (unknown [192.168.0.147]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.unitedinsong.com.au (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 103275C29 for ; Mon, 20 Aug 2012 18:43:08 +1000 (EST) Message-ID: <5031F4FE.50004@herveybayaustralia.com.au> Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 18:27:42 +1000 From: Da Rock User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:13.0) Gecko/20120728 Thunderbird/13.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org References: <502DA0F6.5040305@herveybayaustralia.com.au> <502F80D1.6040901@herveybayaustralia.com.au> <201208181923.04151.bschmidt@techwires.net> In-Reply-To: <201208181923.04151.bschmidt@techwires.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: wpa_supplicant wpa peap gtc connection - gtc failing? X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 08:27:50 -0000 On 08/19/12 03:23, Bernhard Schmidt wrote: > On Saturday 18 August 2012 13:47:29 Da Rock wrote: >> On 08/18/12 13:32, Adrian Chadd wrote: >>> Is there any reason we don't build with that option? >> You know, I was wondering that myself but I wasn't exactly sure whether >> to ask or not :) > Historical reasons I guess, our config matches the default > wpa_supplicant config. I don't see any technical reason not to > enable that and bunch of other exotic stuff. > > Though, as you've already noticed, one can count the number of > user who benefit from such a change on one hand.. ;) > Not sure it's worth the effort, though, if someone wants to do > the work, fine with me. > True on that one :) But then again, there are not many as tenacious as I am, and it is not clear that it has not been enabled anywhere. If the build is not worth it, perhaps some documentation to point a user to what can be added to the build? At least that way if someone is intent enough to find the info they can do something about it? Such as myself; if I had of known it needed the option it might have saved me several weeks of messing around. Just a note in the man pages might do, as well as a wiki, or the handbook. Cheers