WireGuard Archive on lore.kernel.org
 help / Atom feed
* binary module for arch?
@ 2018-12-31  0:58 Jason A. Donenfeld
  2018-12-31  1:48 ` Davide Depau
  2019-01-01 20:50 ` Christian Hesse
  0 siblings, 2 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Jason A. Donenfeld @ 2018-12-31  0:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Christian Hesse; +Cc: WireGuard mailing list

Hey Christian,

I noticed there are now two distro-built packages for wireguard for
arch -- wireguard-lts and wireguard-arch. These seem probably more
convenient for most people than the dkms one. What would you recommend
in terms of updating wireguard.com/install/ ? And do you plan on
depreciating the dkms one at some point, or do you think it will
remain useful for certain users?

Regards,
Jason
_______________________________________________
WireGuard mailing list
WireGuard@lists.zx2c4.com
https://lists.zx2c4.com/mailman/listinfo/wireguard

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread

* Re: binary module for arch?
  2018-12-31  0:58 binary module for arch? Jason A. Donenfeld
@ 2018-12-31  1:48 ` Davide Depau
  2018-12-31 16:11   ` John
  2019-01-01 20:50 ` Christian Hesse
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Davide Depau @ 2018-12-31  1:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Jason A. Donenfeld; +Cc: Christian Hesse, WireGuard mailing list

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1204 bytes --]

Hi Jason,
sorry for sneaking into the conversation but I'm currently using
wireguard-dkms. I think deprecating it would be a bad idea: anyone who uses
a custom kernel cannot use the binary modules.
I'm currently using linux-hardened on my server (yeah, I run Arch Linux on
my personal server lol) and rely on the dkms package for the wireguard
module.
Binary packages should probably be preferred for those who use the default
kernels, however not everyone does.
That being said I really hope WireGuard makes it to mainline soon ;)

Regards,
Davide

On Mon, Dec 31, 2018, 1:59 AM Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason@zx2c4.com> wrote:

> Hey Christian,
>
> I noticed there are now two distro-built packages for wireguard for
> arch -- wireguard-lts and wireguard-arch. These seem probably more
> convenient for most people than the dkms one. What would you recommend
> in terms of updating wireguard.com/install/ ? And do you plan on
> depreciating the dkms one at some point, or do you think it will
> remain useful for certain users?
>
> Regards,
> Jason
> _______________________________________________
> WireGuard mailing list
> WireGuard@lists.zx2c4.com
> https://lists.zx2c4.com/mailman/listinfo/wireguard
>

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 1789 bytes --]

Hi Jason,<div>sorry for sneaking into the conversation but I&#39;m currently using wireguard-dkms. I think deprecating it would be a bad idea: anyone who uses a custom kernel cannot use the binary modules.</div><div>I&#39;m currently using linux-hardened on my server (yeah, I run Arch Linux on my personal server lol) and rely on the dkms package for the wireguard module.</div><div>Binary packages should probably be preferred for those who use the default kernels, however not everyone does.</div><div>That being said I really hope WireGuard makes it to mainline soon ;)</div><div><br></div><div>Regards,</div><div>Davide<br><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr">On Mon, Dec 31, 2018, 1:59 AM Jason A. Donenfeld &lt;<a href="mailto:Jason@zx2c4.com">Jason@zx2c4.com</a>&gt; wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Hey Christian,<br>
<br>
I noticed there are now two distro-built packages for wireguard for<br>
arch -- wireguard-lts and wireguard-arch. These seem probably more<br>
convenient for most people than the dkms one. What would you recommend<br>
in terms of updating <a href="http://wireguard.com/install/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">wireguard.com/install/</a> ? And do you plan on<br>
depreciating the dkms one at some point, or do you think it will<br>
remain useful for certain users?<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
Jason<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
WireGuard mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:WireGuard@lists.zx2c4.com" target="_blank">WireGuard@lists.zx2c4.com</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.zx2c4.com/mailman/listinfo/wireguard" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.zx2c4.com/mailman/listinfo/wireguard</a><br>
</blockquote></div></div>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 148 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
WireGuard mailing list
WireGuard@lists.zx2c4.com
https://lists.zx2c4.com/mailman/listinfo/wireguard

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread

* Re: binary module for arch?
  2018-12-31  1:48 ` Davide Depau
@ 2018-12-31 16:11   ` John
  2019-01-01 12:44     ` Jordan Glover
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: John @ 2018-12-31 16:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Davide Depau; +Cc: Christian Hesse, WireGuard mailing list

Our package manager, pacman, will display optional dependencies to
users/most known to inspect the output.

My recommendation is to change the wording under the command on your
install page to something like: "Users of the distro provided kernels
(linux and linux-lts) may download the requisite corresponding
precompiled wireguard module. Users of custom kernels will require the
wireguard-dkms package and corresponding kernel headers to compile the
module."

For your info, example pacman output that most Arch users will be
accustom to reading upon installation of the wireguard-tools package:

% sudo pacman -S wireguard-tools
resolving dependencies...
looking for conflicting packages...

Packages (1) wireguard-tools-0.0.20181218-2

Total Installed Size:  0.21 MiB

:: Proceed with installation? [Y/n]
(1/1) checking keys in keyring
[#############################] 100%
(1/1) checking package integrity
[#############################] 100%
(1/1) loading package files
[#############################] 100%
(1/1) checking for file conflicts
[#############################] 100%
:: Processing package changes...
(1/1) installing wireguard-tools
[#############################] 100%
Optional dependencies for wireguard-tools
    openresolv: for DNS functionality [installed]
    wireguard-dkms: wireguard module, built by dkms
    wireguard-arch: wireguard module for linux
    wireguard-lts: wireguard module for linux-lts
:: Running post-transaction hooks...
(1/2) Reloading system manager configuration...
(2/2) Arming ConditionNeedsUpdate...


On Sun, Dec 30, 2018 at 8:50 PM Davide Depau <davide@depau.eu> wrote:
>
> Hi Jason,
> sorry for sneaking into the conversation but I'm currently using wireguard-dkms. I think deprecating it would be a bad idea: anyone who uses a custom kernel cannot use the binary modules.
> I'm currently using linux-hardened on my server (yeah, I run Arch Linux on my personal server lol) and rely on the dkms package for the wireguard module.
> Binary packages should probably be preferred for those who use the default kernels, however not everyone does.
> That being said I really hope WireGuard makes it to mainline soon ;)
>
> Regards,
> Davide
>
> On Mon, Dec 31, 2018, 1:59 AM Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason@zx2c4.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hey Christian,
>>
>> I noticed there are now two distro-built packages for wireguard for
>> arch -- wireguard-lts and wireguard-arch. These seem probably more
>> convenient for most people than the dkms one. What would you recommend
>> in terms of updating wireguard.com/install/ ? And do you plan on
>> depreciating the dkms one at some point, or do you think it will
>> remain useful for certain users?
>>
>> Regards,
>> Jason
_______________________________________________
WireGuard mailing list
WireGuard@lists.zx2c4.com
https://lists.zx2c4.com/mailman/listinfo/wireguard

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread

* Re: binary module for arch?
  2018-12-31 16:11   ` John
@ 2019-01-01 12:44     ` Jordan Glover
  2019-01-01 20:54       ` Christian Hesse
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Jordan Glover @ 2019-01-01 12:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: John; +Cc: WireGuard mailing list, Christian Hesse

On Monday, December 31, 2018 5:11 PM, John <graysky@archlinux.us> wrote:

> My recommendation is to change the wording under the command on your
> install page to something like: "Users of the distro provided kernels
> (linux and linux-lts) may download the requisite corresponding
> precompiled wireguard module. Users of custom kernels will require the
> wireguard-dkms package and corresponding kernel headers to compile the
> module."
>

This isn't strictly true as there are distro provided kernels
(linux-hardened and linux-zen) which don't have wireguard binary modules
available. Below would be more appropriate:

"Users of linux and linux-lts kernels may download the requisite
corresponding precompiled wireguard module. Users of other kernels will
require the wireguard-dkms package and corresponding kernel headers to
compile the module."

Jordan
_______________________________________________
WireGuard mailing list
WireGuard@lists.zx2c4.com
https://lists.zx2c4.com/mailman/listinfo/wireguard

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread

* Re: binary module for arch?
  2018-12-31  0:58 binary module for arch? Jason A. Donenfeld
  2018-12-31  1:48 ` Davide Depau
@ 2019-01-01 20:50 ` Christian Hesse
  2019-01-02  0:22   ` Jason A. Donenfeld
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Christian Hesse @ 2019-01-01 20:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Jason A. Donenfeld; +Cc: WireGuard mailing list

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 698 bytes --]

"Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@zx2c4.com> on Mon, 2018/12/31 01:58:
> Hey Christian,
> 
> I noticed there are now two distro-built packages for wireguard for
> arch -- wireguard-lts and wireguard-arch. These seem probably more
> convenient for most people than the dkms one. What would you recommend
> in terms of updating wireguard.com/install/ ? And do you plan on
> depreciating the dkms one at some point, or do you think it will
> remain useful for certain users?

Hey Jason,

some people gave their legit reasons to keep wireguard-dkms. I have to add
another one: It is a build-dependency for the binary modules packages. So it
will stay definitely. ;)
-- 
Best regards,
Chris

[-- Attachment #1.2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 148 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
WireGuard mailing list
WireGuard@lists.zx2c4.com
https://lists.zx2c4.com/mailman/listinfo/wireguard

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread

* Re: binary module for arch?
  2019-01-01 12:44     ` Jordan Glover
@ 2019-01-01 20:54       ` Christian Hesse
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Christian Hesse @ 2019-01-01 20:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Jordan Glover; +Cc: WireGuard mailing list

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1490 bytes --]

Jordan Glover <Golden_Miller83@protonmail.ch> on Tue, 2019/01/01 12:44:
> On Monday, December 31, 2018 5:11 PM, John <graysky@archlinux.us> wrote:
> 
> > My recommendation is to change the wording under the command on your
> > install page to something like: "Users of the distro provided kernels
> > (linux and linux-lts) may download the requisite corresponding
> > precompiled wireguard module. Users of custom kernels will require the
> > wireguard-dkms package and corresponding kernel headers to compile the
> > module."
> >  
> 
> This isn't strictly true as there are distro provided kernels
> (linux-hardened and linux-zen) which don't have wireguard binary modules
> available. Below would be more appropriate:
> 
> "Users of linux and linux-lts kernels may download the requisite
> corresponding precompiled wireguard module. Users of other kernels will
> require the wireguard-dkms package and corresponding kernel headers to
> compile the module."

I would propose another change in wording as you do not download modules but
packages:

"Users of linux and linux-lts kernels may download the requisite
corresponding precompiled wireguard module package. Users of other kernels
will require the wireguard-dkms package and corresponding kernel headers to
compile the module."

Installing wireguard-tools package with pacman gives info about optional
dependencies, so the name of the required packages should be obvious.
-- 
Schoene Gruesse
Chris

[-- Attachment #1.2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 148 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
WireGuard mailing list
WireGuard@lists.zx2c4.com
https://lists.zx2c4.com/mailman/listinfo/wireguard

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread

* Re: binary module for arch?
  2019-01-01 20:50 ` Christian Hesse
@ 2019-01-02  0:22   ` Jason A. Donenfeld
  2019-01-02  7:57     ` Christian Hesse
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Jason A. Donenfeld @ 2019-01-02  0:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Christian Hesse; +Cc: WireGuard mailing list

Hi Christian,

On Tue, Jan 1, 2019 at 9:50 PM Christian Hesse <mail@eworm.de> wrote:
>
> "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@zx2c4.com> on Mon, 2018/12/31 01:58:
> > Hey Christian,
> >
> > I noticed there are now two distro-built packages for wireguard for
> > arch -- wireguard-lts and wireguard-arch. These seem probably more
> > convenient for most people than the dkms one. What would you recommend
> > in terms of updating wireguard.com/install/ ? And do you plan on
> > depreciating the dkms one at some point, or do you think it will
> > remain useful for certain users?
> some people gave their legit reasons to keep wireguard-dkms. I have to add
> another one: It is a build-dependency for the binary modules packages. So it
> will stay definitely. ;)

Makes sense. I was mostly wondering about that first question though:
what would you recommend I put on wireguard.com/install/ for Arch
users?
_______________________________________________
WireGuard mailing list
WireGuard@lists.zx2c4.com
https://lists.zx2c4.com/mailman/listinfo/wireguard

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread

* Re: binary module for arch?
  2019-01-02  0:22   ` Jason A. Donenfeld
@ 2019-01-02  7:57     ` Christian Hesse
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Christian Hesse @ 2019-01-02  7:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Jason A. Donenfeld; +Cc: Christian Hesse, WireGuard mailing list

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1355 bytes --]

"Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@zx2c4.com> on Wed, 2019/01/02 01:22:
> Hi Christian,
> 
> On Tue, Jan 1, 2019 at 9:50 PM Christian Hesse <mail@eworm.de> wrote:
> >
> > "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@zx2c4.com> on Mon, 2018/12/31 01:58:  
> > > Hey Christian,
> > >
> > > I noticed there are now two distro-built packages for wireguard for
> > > arch -- wireguard-lts and wireguard-arch. These seem probably more
> > > convenient for most people than the dkms one. What would you recommend
> > > in terms of updating wireguard.com/install/ ? And do you plan on
> > > depreciating the dkms one at some point, or do you think it will
> > > remain useful for certain users?  
> > some people gave their legit reasons to keep wireguard-dkms. I have to add
> > another one: It is a build-dependency for the binary modules packages. So
> > it will stay definitely. ;)  
> 
> Makes sense. I was mostly wondering about that first question though:
> what would you recommend I put on wireguard.com/install/ for Arch
> users?

I sent another mail to the other branch of the thread. Did that answer your
question?
-- 
main(a){char*c=/*    Schoene Gruesse                         */"B?IJj;MEH"
"CX:;",b;for(a/*    Best regards             my address:    */=0;b=c[a++];)
putchar(b-1/(/*    Chris            cc -ox -xc - && ./x    */b/42*2-3)*42);}

[-- Attachment #1.2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 148 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
WireGuard mailing list
WireGuard@lists.zx2c4.com
https://lists.zx2c4.com/mailman/listinfo/wireguard

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread

end of thread, back to index

Thread overview: 8+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2018-12-31  0:58 binary module for arch? Jason A. Donenfeld
2018-12-31  1:48 ` Davide Depau
2018-12-31 16:11   ` John
2019-01-01 12:44     ` Jordan Glover
2019-01-01 20:54       ` Christian Hesse
2019-01-01 20:50 ` Christian Hesse
2019-01-02  0:22   ` Jason A. Donenfeld
2019-01-02  7:57     ` Christian Hesse

WireGuard Archive on lore.kernel.org

Archives are clonable:
	git clone --mirror https://lore.kernel.org/wireguard/0 wireguard/git/0.git

	# If you have public-inbox 1.1+ installed, you may
	# initialize and index your mirror using the following commands:
	public-inbox-init -V2 wireguard wireguard/ https://lore.kernel.org/wireguard \
		wireguard@lists.zx2c4.com zx2c4-wireguard@archiver.kernel.org
	public-inbox-index wireguard


Newsgroup available over NNTP:
	nntp://nntp.lore.kernel.org/com.zx2c4.lists.wireguard


AGPL code for this site: git clone https://public-inbox.org/ public-inbox