search

ublue-os / ucore

An OCI base image of Fedora CoreOS with batteries included
https://projectucore.io
Apache License 2.0
115 stars 23 forks source link

feat: ucore/packages.json: Add NetworkManager-wifi #140

Closed travier closed 3 months ago

travier commented 3 months ago

Add NetworkManager-wifi for a better wifi management experience.

Based on https://github.com/ublue-os/ucore/pull/139 for convenience.

See: https://github.com/ublue-os/ucore/issues/138 See: https://github.com/coreos/fedora-coreos-tracker/issues/862

bsherman commented 3 months ago

There was also a comment about adding iwd on the issue which spawned this PR: https://github.com/ublue-os/ucore/issues/138#issuecomment-2035244506 .

I'd like to get feedback from some users of ucore before we proceed with adding either NetworkManager-wifi or iwd to ucore. If we do add iwd, I want it to be added at the same time as NetworkManager-wifi.

travier commented 3 months ago

I think it's independent. You would want NetworkManager-wifi in all cases to manage wifi devices using NetworkManager.

bsherman commented 3 months ago

I think it's independent. You would want NetworkManager-wifi in all cases to manage wifi devices using NetworkManager.

Agreed using NetworkManager-wifi to manage is preferred.

The reason I'm linking them is if a user first runs wpa_supplicant as the NetworkManager-wifi backend, the PSK for a given SSID will be remembered in /etc/NetworkManager/system-connections allowing for auto-reconnect after reboot, etc. But if iwd is then added to the image, the connection for that remembered SSID will fail after reboot because iwd additionally stores the PSK in /var/lib/iwd and uses that value rather than the value stored bye NetworkManager.

So, while iwd works great as a backend, the migration would likely be an unpleasant surprise to any user.

travier commented 3 months ago

I think we should considerate both independently. There are no timeline nor work in progress right now for iwd inclusion so this is about improving the status quo. We can look at the iwd transition if and when it happens. We can even consider keeping both in the image and let users make their own choice as iwd does not cover 100% use cases from wpa_supplicant as far as I remember.

Overall it's up to you, but I don't know how would users be expected to manage their wifi interfaces right now on ucore if they don't have this package installed.

bsherman commented 3 months ago

I think we should considerate both independently. There are no timeline nor work in progress right now for iwd inclusion so this is about improving the status quo. We can look at the iwd transition if and when it happens. We can even consider keeping both in the image and let users make their own choice as iwd does not cover 100% use cases from wpa_supplicant as far as I remember.

After soliciting feedback from some users, there's pretty clear interest in adding NetworkManager-wifi, while iwd is less specifically requested.

I do agree, both wpa_supplicant and iwd could exist on image and user could chose to configure iwd if required/desired, but we can still leave that for a separate request.

Overall it's up to you, but I don't know how would users be expected to manage their wifi interfaces right now on ucore if they don't have this package installed.

Until now, I would assume users have layered packages or built custom images on top of ucore.