rpms/VirtualBox/F-18 VirtualBox.spec, 1.17, 1.18 vboxweb.service, 1.1, 1.2

[Nicolas Chauvet]

2012/9/16 Sérgio Basto <sergio at serjux.com>:
> On Sáb, 2012-09-15 at 09:32 +0200, Nicolas Chauvet wrote:
>> 2012/9/15 Sérgio Basto <sergio at serjux.com>:
>> > On Sex, 2012-09-14 at 19:05 +0200, Nicolas Chauvet wrote:
>> >> 2012/9/13 Sérgio M. Basto <sergiomb at rpmfusion.org>:
>> ...
>> >> What does this 32bit support stands for ? Because usually we copy the
>> >> produced binary -libs sub-package from the "native" 32bit tree to the
>> >> x86_64 tree.
>> >> This is done automatically by the multilib script from the infra side.
>> >
>> > VirtualBox for x86_64 on configure test if have 32-bit support ,
>> > Checking for 32-bit support: OK. (on my mock build).
>> >
>> > and we patch the ./configure to not check that because it fails. I just
>> > want remove that patch and let VirtualBox configure him self without
>> > patching, seems to me better and closer to upstream, since it works on
>> > my mock builds.
>> If it's only a test, there is no need to worry, you can create a
>> disable 32bit test and submit it upstream.
>> But you seems to say that there are no 32bit binaries produced
>> elsewhere ? What this test is useful for ?
>
> Hi, it wasn't easy (for me) update patches to VirtualBox 4.2 , in middle
> of the process, some errors occurred about 32bit binaries ...
> I'm not worried about it, simple is more simple build the package
> without the patch ...
>
> VirtualBox-4.2.0 is out , can I update it on F17 ?
That's up to you. I haven't used it yet.

BTW have you seen this ?
http://fedora-os.org/2012/09/13/workaround-for-vbox-modules-loading/

Nicolas (kwizart)