On wireless (iw/iwconfig)

[nick65go]

1. Is any advantage to use iw versus iwconfig?
iwconfig is a legacy wireless config utility for the wext api, iw is a new wireless config utility for the nl80211 api. with implications for wifi.tcz

2. wifi.tcz depneds on wpa_supplicant.tcz, which depends on libnl.tcz
but searching (with cat | grep) for strings like libnl-r or libnl-nf show that the libnl-route-3.so.200 or libnl-nf-3.so.200 are not call by any ELF programs or libraries. Also ldd on all suspects (sbin/, lib/) does not show them.

if is not the proper forum branch to discuss it, please move it if you like. thanks

[curaga]

This doesn't concern the kernel, so moved here. On the kernel side we have both enabled, so you can already use either config utility, whichever you prefer.

[nick65go]

ok, for the kernel configuration parameters.
but my question remains about

1. iw versus iwconfig ADVANTAGE, are any like sise, speed, security?
iw is maitained in kernel site, iwconfig is not. Is it worth the effort to change from iwconfig to iw?

2. how about the some (potential) not necesary libs for libnl.tcz
I have mksquashed a simple tcw without libnl-route and libnl-nf, and wifi.tcz still works.

3. I am still following the toybox effort to replace busybox.
ip versus ipconfig was solved already by busybox, all variants ip /ipconfig/route etc are inside busybox.
this integration sparked my question about iw / iwconfig: same features with "router" tools size cutted to the bons.