Summary: | wpa_suplicant man page includes non-existent option | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | Documentation | Reporter: | rkoberman |
Component: | Manual Pages | Assignee: | freebsd-bugs (Nobody) <bugs> |
Status: | New --- | ||
Severity: | Affects Only Me | CC: | des, doc, gperciva, ziaee |
Priority: | --- | ||
Version: | Latest | ||
Hardware: | Any | ||
OS: | Any |
Description
rkoberman
2024-09-20 20:56:37 UTC
MARKED AS SPAM ^Triage: Confirmed. I am interested in fixing this manual. We do not have -f. Can you tell me more about what needs to be corrected in -N? (In reply to Alexander Ziaee from comment #2) Sorry. The need to fix '-N' was erroneous.I crossed up '-M' (missing) and '-N'. Don't know how I did that. Call it a senior moment. I suspect that this is a build-system problem, not a man problem. I started off looking at the original source for wpa_supplicant (since it's in contrib/ ), and found their documentation: https://w1.fi/cgit/hostap/tree/wpa_supplicant/doc/docbook/wpa_supplicant.sgml#n389 In particular, note > (This is only available if <command>wpa_supplicant</command> was > built with the <literal>CONFIG_DEBUG_FILE</literal> option.) If you use your favourite text editor and open contrib/wpa/wpa_supplicant/main.c then search for "-f", you'll find: > #ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_FILE > " [-f<debug file>]" > #endif /* CONFIG_DEBUG_FILE */ At first glance, the Makefile and defconfig (is that used by FreeBSD?) look like they enable CONFIG_DEBUG_FILE. But clearly that's not happening, so I think the next step would be to figure out why. (I don't plan on investigating this issue further at the moment.) Assuming you're referring to a Makefile you found under contrib/wpa: no, FreeBSD does not use that. It uses a set of Makefiles found under usr.sbin/wpa instead, and does not define CONFIG_DEBUG_FILE, although that's easy enough to change if deemed worthwhile. I believe that the man file should match the program as it i built by default in FreeBSD. I suspect that CONFIG_DEBUG_FILE makes sense as long as there is no down side. But, why i it not default? I've got to think that there must have been a reason. I can't see any obvious security issues, but I don't know just what might be written to a file that might be too accessible. I'd be slightly concerned possible performance issues. I'll admit that this looks unlikely. There is also the 'G'. I have no idea what it is. Never run into the global ctrl_interface, let alone the global ctrl_interface group. |