k-n-m 0.7: feedback and questions

[Helmut Schaa]

Hi Michael,

Am Fr 13 Jun 2008 01:43:19 CEST schrieb Michael Biebl <biebl at debian.org>:

> Hi everyone,
>
> I've been using NM 0.7 (svn r3750) and k-n-m 0.7 (svn r819795) for some
> time now, and I noticed a few things.
> First of all, the good: Creating (wireless) connections basically works
> (tested with WPA).

WPA-EAP is currently broken. WEP should work fine.

> Now the bad:
> 1.) kwalletmanager is *not* used for storing the WPA secrets

Correct. I'm not working on that yet but it should not be too much  
work as the secret handling is already designed to be able to work  
with KWallet.

> 2.) Creating a wireless connection has become a bit more complicated.
> knm 0.2 showed me a list of all available wlans, and I could simply
> select one and knm prompted me for the password. simple.
> Now I first have to create a connection manually (via "New connection"
> or "Edit connections".) The new interface is not so intuitive as the
> old one, although I admit, that the context menu can become a bit
> cluttered, if you have a lot of wlans active in your area.

Exactly that was the reason why we decided not to show all available  
wireless networks in the context menu but only the known ones. Maybe  
if time allows that could be made configurable.

> 3.) The nice info dialog is gone ;-) Also, k-n-m 0.2 showed me useful
> information when I hovered over the networks in the dropdown list.
> Maybe this is a deliberate decision to simplify the UI, just wanted to
> note that I liked the old behaviour.

Yes, I want that too but functionality is currently more important  
then porting the info dialog and tooltips.

> 4.) Integration with system-settings service is missing.
>   a.) It's not possible to store/edit/activate system settings
>   b.) If e.g. a wlan system connection is active, k-n-m only shows a
> green globe, not the actual status.

That's on my list.

> All in all, the situation is much improved over a few weeks ago and knm
> 0.7 is basically usable (so kudos!), but 1.) and 4.) are currently my
> two main showstoppers.
>
> So, my question is, if you are already working on these issue and if
> there is a  time frame, when we can expect this.

I cannot give you an estimation just yet but I'll keep you posted.

> I'd like to get NM 0.7 into Debian lenny, which would require a
> functional k-n-m. Without a fully working k-n-m, I'll have to stick to
> 0.6.6.

The basic problem is that NM 0.7 is not even released and it is really  
exhausting to work on the 0.7-branch with its unstable API. That  
basically means that one cannot expect a KNM SVN snapshot to work  
smoothly with a NM SVN snapshot.

> Thanks for your all your hard work,
> Michael

Thanks for your feedback Michael,
Helmut