@btx Since the OP has solved their problem I guess we will need to just agree to disagree on this point.  I don't want to drag this on any further for anyone still subscribed to this topic.

EDIT

EDIT

@btx OK, at your request, let me try one more time. First let me clarify my position.

• I am not proposing that anyone setup Arch/Manjaro to run the controller.  If that is your use case it makes much more sense to simply deploy on a supported platform.
• However, if you are using Arch/Manjaro, the AUR package is the best way to get it running on those distros.
• My understanding is that tplink doesn't support Linux generally.  They only support running the controller on "Ubuntu 16.04/18.04/20.04, Debian 8/9/10, CentOS 6/7" according to their own page.  So even if you download the archive and install it yourself, you are still in an unsupported configuration unless you are on one of those platforms.
  • It is worth noting that many of those platforms are either EOL or soon to be EOL.  In fact, in the very near future, everything except Centos 7, Ubuntu 18.04/20.04 will be EOL.
  • You may notice that the newest distro on that list is from 2020

Even knowing it is not supported, if you want to install on Arch/Manjaro anyway, you should use the AUR package.  The reason for that is very simple.  If you don't use a package that can be managed by pacman, it is highly likely you will end up with a broken controller on an Arch-based distro.  What you are proposing, in my experience working with both Arch and Manjaro, doesn't work on those distros long-term.

The script that tplink ships in their archive makes strong assumptions and is based on concepts that are pre-systemd.  There are very few modern distros that it would fully support.  Fixing that isn't tweaking, it is throwing it away and rewriting it.

EDIT

  @btx OK, I am giving up now.

We aren't even communicating here.

EDIT

  @btx My issue isn't that one of us is right and the other is wrong.  My issue is that we are not connecting.

From my perspective, your responses are only tangentially related to the statements I am making.  Perhaps it is the same from your perspective?

Half the things that are being said aren't even in conflict with each other.

At this point, I don't see any way to make you understand what I am trying to communicate so I am trying to bring the conversation to a merciful end.  Again, I am not implying anything here.  Perhaps I am doing a poor job of explaining myself.

EDIT