VirtualBox confusion

[AnotherUser]

I wanted to install VirtualBox on my fully updated (albeit running custom linux kernel) PCLOS. I went into Synaptic and searched for virtualbox. What I found was not only confusing, but also possible wrong.

• There appears to be a task-virtualbox which seems broken because it tries to pull in dkms-vboxadditions which wants to remove basesystem and other important packages.
• There is a getvirtualbox package which installs and runs just fine.

So this brings me to my question. Why are there two ways to install virtualbox in PCLOS? If only one seems to be functional, shouldn't the other be removed from the repos?

[pupthai]

getvitualbox is a script that downloads and installs the vitualbox from the official site.  The repo version is the open source version - it used to not have usb support which is why the script came along as the official version is not allowed to be on the repo.  I don't know the status of the repo version have not used it in years.

[AnotherUser]

That's kind of what I figured. Which leaves me with 2 questions and a comment

• Question 1: If/when I wanted to, how would I upgrade VirtualBox? The synaptic install of getvirtualbox is but a script which is always up to date (I assume)
• Question 2: If/when I wanted to, how would I uninstall VirtualBox from my machine?
• Comment: Unless there is a really good reason for it, the maintainers of the repo should remove/fix the other version of VirtualBox

[luikki]

1- menu > more applications>  emulators> get oracle vm virtual box

2 - use synaptic

regards

[kjpetrie]

The official way is to use getvirtualbox for all installation or removal.

VB used to be divided into a full version that had USB access, and an Open Source edition which lacked features. Only the open source version can be packaged for the repo, but VB originally built a special rpm for pclos of the full edition which could be added unchanged. When they stopped doing that Pinoc came up with the script.

However, Oracle split it differently soon after they acquired the company. Now VB is open source and the extra facilities are supplied by an extension pack. In theory, there is therefore no need for a script except to aid in installing the right extension pack, as the main program could be put in the repo. I, personally, would prefer it that way, as I dislike having to run separate scripts to do what the package manager should do. However, as the person who used to package it, I don't prefer it enough to take on the work!

Pinoc is used to maintaining his script, it saves a lot of development work, and it's become the way it's done here.

It sounds as if the package in the repo has become incompatible with the rest of the system, and therefore should be removed. It is very old and inferior to the modern version.

[pags]

I thought task-virtualbox, bringing in, for example, dkms-vboxadditions, was for PCLOS running as a guest, as opposed to the get-virtualbox script, which is for running a host...

[kjpetrie]

This package was built by Texstar, so it can't be broken!. However, it does seem a little strange.

Task-virtualbox pulls in dkms-virtualbox (host kernel module), virtualbox, x11-driver-input-vboxmouse, x11-driver-video-vboxvideo (I think those last two are for the guest), dkms-vboxadditions, and virtualbox-guest-additions (definitely for the guest).

Seems to pull in everything but definitely includes all the host stuff (and it looks like all the guest stuff as well!)

I've just checked the corresponding virtualbox package's changelog. I packaged this for about six months until 4.0.6 when I gave up. It appears Texstar took over from 4.0.8 until 4.1.4. I did not know about this, as I went over to Pinoc's script in the belief the package was no longer maintained. Anyway, it's well out-of-date now.

(originally posted 21 January 2013 but seems to have moved to another thread! Posted back here 1st Feb 2013.)