Re: [PATCH] wpa-supplicant: Patch this recipe order to remove a duplicate defconfig file

[Andrei Gherzan <andrei@gherzan.ro>]

On 01/05/2012 07:00 PM, Phil Blundell wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-01-05 at 18:54 +0200, Andrei Gherzan wrote:
>> On 01/05/2012 06:41 PM, Phil Blundell wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2012-01-05 at 18:39 +0200, Andrei Gherzan wrote:
>>>> From: Andrei Gherzan<andrei.gherzan@windriver.com>
>>>>
>>>> Instead of having two defconfigs we can have only one and append this file with de specific
>>>> CONFIG if GPLv3 packages are allowed.
>>> As I said the other day, I think it would be better to just have one
>>> defconfig and turn off the GPLv3 stuff entirely.  Do you know of anybody
>>> who actually wants to use it?
>>>
>>> p.
>>>
>>>
>> Now about that extra config. The idea of having it into a a build were
>> gplv3 are allowed,was support for TLS/IA which was designed to be used
>> in the EAP-TTLSv1
>> https://lists.yoctoproject.org/pipermail/poky/2011-December/007386.html
> Well, right.  But the point I was making in my previous email
>
> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/pipermail/openembedded-core/2012-January/015375.html
>
> is that nobody seems to be using TLS/IA, the code in wpa-supplicant was
> apparently never all that well tested, and support for it has been
> removed entirely in the latest versions of all the relevant software
> (and hence, barring heroic efforts, we will lose it anyway next time
> wpa-supplicant is upgraded).
>
> So, unless you know of anybody who actually has a requirement for that
> protocol today, I would be inclined to just turn it off unconditionally
> rather than adding some mechanism to turn it on and off based on
> INCOMPATIBLE_LICENSE.
>
> p.
>
>

I didn't see that message of yours. And actually you are right. I 
haven't seen any req for that protocol and never heard of any. So in my 
opinion a complete removal of this option would remain the best 
approach. I can undo all the changes and add this config disabled.