From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Peter Korsgaard Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 20:26:30 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH] optional DBus support in wpa_supplicant In-Reply-To: <4A5B4D46.6010807@zacarias.com.ar> (Gustavo Zacarias's message of "Mon\, 13 Jul 2009 12\:05\:42 -0300") References: <1247473258.4007.7.camel@sven> <1247476399.4007.13.camel@sven> <87ljms981c.fsf@macbook.be.48ers.dk> <1247495564.20117.4.camel@sven> <4A5B4D46.6010807@zacarias.com.ar> Message-ID: <87k52c1lt5.fsf@macbook.be.48ers.dk> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net >>>>> "Gustavo" == Gustavo Zacarias writes: Hi, Gustavo> Being the one "guilty" of wpa_supplicant updates i don't Gustavo> have a strong opinion on this either. On one side Gustavo> wpa_supplicant has it's own way of controlling itself via Gustavo> wpa_cli and thus somewhat negates the need for dbus Gustavo> bindings. On the other side you may not want to fork to Gustavo> call wpa_cli and/or learn the wpa_supplicant/cli controlling Gustavo> protocol (or other good reasons), and if you already have Gustavo> dbus enabled those extra 24k probably won't hurt that much Gustavo> in the global scheme of things - after all people who want Gustavo> to save that last KB will probably steer away from dbus. Indeed. For big dependencies like dbus (or openssl), then I would prefer BR to just do the right thing (tm) instead of adding very detailed configuration options for things that only increase the size with a few %. In the case of dbus, the minimal configuration (including dependencies) is around ~1MB, so I don't think it's worthwhile discussing about 24kb overhead. -- Bye, Peter Korsgaard