VirtualBox package questions

[kjpetrie]

As will be apparent from other posts, I have produced a package for VirtualBox 4.0.6. It works well on my systems.

However, it produces dkms packages, which Texstar has deprecated with the 2.6.38 kernels. I'm not clear on why this is. Is dkms incompatible with the latest kernel, or is there some other reason for deprecating certain dkms packages?

I have downloaded the getVirtualBox script to have a look at it but it doesn't shed any light. It seems the VirtualBox installer downloaded by the script handles all the necessary decisions. I must have the installer script in my source code somewhere and maybe I should look at that.

I would prefer, personally, to see applications in the repository rather than multiply special installation scripts which make upgrading a two-step process which becomes fiddly when one wishes to maintain multiple machines with limited bandwidth or other connection restrictions.

However, I'm not quite sure how to proceed with a non-dkms based process for building the driver modules, or even whether that is what is required.

Anyone know what the core issue here is?

[AS]

Hi kjpetrie,

As will be apparent from other posts, I have produced a package for VirtualBox 4.0.6. It works well on my systems.

+1 on my system.

However, it produces dkms packages, which Texstar has deprecated with the 2.6.38 kernels. I'm not clear on why this is. Is dkms incompatible with the latest kernel, or is there some other reason for deprecating certain dkms packages?

Those were the dkms-vbox-3.x modules, which doesn't build correctly on 2.6.38.x kernels

I have downloaded the getVirtualBox script to have a look at it but it doesn't shed any light. It seems the VirtualBox installer downloaded by the script handles all the necessary decisions. I must have the installer script in my source code somewhere and maybe I should look at that.

I would prefer, personally, to see applications in the repository rather than multiply special installation scripts which make upgrading a two-step process which becomes fiddly when one wishes to maintain multiple machines with limited bandwidth or other connection restrictions.

However, I'm not quite sure how to proceed with a non-dkms based process for building the driver modules, or even whether that is what is required.

Anyone know what the core issue here is?

The overall, to me look like a version dependency problem, not a dkms vs. not dkms problem. Don't think you can provide a non-dkms option!

AS

[kjpetrie]

Thanks as, so I suppose the next stage is to install the 2.6.38 kernel with '--nodeps' on my test system and see whether it actually works. If it does, either Texstar (assuming he wants to accept the package) would have to tweak the kernel's Conflicts line or I would have to 'unsplit' the package so the dkms modules were included in the core, as they apparently are in the Oracle download.

[AS]

Adding some details to avoid "words confusion":

at time of Vbox 3.x there was 2 virtualbox related dkms packages:
- one to build the vboxdrv modules, necessary on host to run a virtualbox machine
- the dkms-vboxadditions, which provide support when running PClinuxOS as guest machine.

Now I don't remember the details, other then when trying to upgrading the kernel to 2.6.38.x the dkms module build failed, therefore I delayed the kernel upgrade until I decided to install VirtualBox 4.x.

The getvirtualbox script, actually get and install the virtualbox software, including the vboxdrv dkms module. All fine.

When a user decide to install the guest-additions, they are available to the guest machine, as mounted ISO image, is up to the guest user to install the guest additions, not a difficult task however.

this should be the Texstar's post you are referring to:
http://www.pclinuxos.com/forum/index.php/topic,90702.msg760459.html#msg760459

the depreciated modules are the guest-additions, still I do not see any problem with the current "getvirtualbox" package behavior.

If, for some reason which is beyond me, instead of the "getvirtualbox" Texstar will decide to provide the a VirtualBox as packages instead of as script,
that's will require the dkms-vboxdrv package, still the dkms-guest additions could be not provided (after all they are going to be installed on the guest OS).

The best thing you can do is to get in touch with Texstar directly, about the future directions. 

AS