7:59 p.m.
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=285
Summary: Review Request: VirtualBox-OSE - A general-purpose full
virtualizer for PC hardware
Product: Package Reviews
Version: Current
Platform: All
OS/Version: GNU/Linux
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P5
Component: Review Request
AssignedTo: rpmfusion-package-review(a)rpmfusion.org
ReportedBy: lkundrak(a)v3.sk
CC: rpmfusion-package-review(a)rpmfusion.org, lxtnow(a)gmail.com
Estimated Hours: 0.0
Main package:
SPEC: http://v3.sk/~lkundrak/SPECS/VirtualBox-OSE.spec
SRPM: http://v3.sk/~lkundrak/SRPMS/VirtualBox-OSE-2.1.0-1.fc10.src.rpm
Kernel module:
SPEC: http://v3.sk/~lkundrak/SPECS/VirtualBox-OSE-kmod.spec
SRPM: http://v3.sk/~lkundrak/SRPMS/VirtualBox-OSE-kmod-2.1.0-1.fc10.src.rpm
Description:
A general-purpose full virtualizer and emulator for 32-bit and
64-bit x86 based PC-compatible machines.
A few notes:
* I have heard that some other people were working on packaging VirtualBox,
notably Xavier Lamien. He might have already been working on merger as I
proposed to him during kBuild review -- if it is the case I'll gladly accept
the results here. I opened this review instead of waiting for his package since
I had need for the up-to date package and time to get it done. I'll also be
glad in Xavier maintained the Fedora branch of this once it's in; I'm
interested in EPEL branch.
* You'll need kBuild-0.1.5-0.1.20081106svn to build this, 0.1.4 won't do.
* There are a few TODOs in the file, notably those regarding optflags. I am
aware of this guidelines violation, but seems very tricky to get right.
--
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.
10:14 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 285] Review Request: VirtualBox-OSE - A general-purpose full virtualizer for PC hardware
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=285
Xavier Lamien <lxtnow(a)gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
AssignedTo|rpmfusion-package- |lxtnow(a)gmail.com
|review(a)rpmfusion.org |
--- Comment #1 from Xavier Lamien <lxtnow(a)gmail.com> 2008-12-30 23:14:22 ---
no problem.
we'll working on that one and do all fixes that need to be.
--
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.
2:29 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 285] Review Request: VirtualBox-OSE - A general-purpose full virtualizer for PC hardware
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=285
--- Comment #2 from Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora(a)leemhuis.info> 2009-01-02 15:29:54
---
Created an attachment (id=67)
--> (http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/attachment.cgi?id=67)
Small improvements for VirtualBox-OSE-kmod.spec
Just a few notes (I just wanted to look at the kmod):
- I could not rebuild VirtualBox-OSE-2.1.0-1.fc10.src.rpm on F10, x86_64:
[...]
Checking for PulseAudio: found version 0.9.13 API version 12, OK.
Checking for libcap library: found, OK.
Checking for compiler.h: compiler.h not found, OK.
Checking for 32-bit support:
Cannot compile 32-bit applications (missing headers and/or libraries)!
Check the file /home/rpmqa/rpmbuild/BUILD/VirtualBox-2.1.0/configure.log for detailed
error information.
Fehler: Fehler-Status beim Beenden von /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.Z1Fb3T (%build)
From configure.log:
***** Checking 32-bit support *****
compiling the following source file:
#include <stdint.h>
int main(void)
{
return 0;
}
using the following command line:
gcc -m32 -O -Wall -o .tmp_out .tmp_src.c
In file included from /usr/include/features.h:359,
from /usr/include/stdint.h:26,
from .tmp_src.c:1:
/usr/include/gnu/stubs.h:7:27: error: gnu/stubs-32.h: No such file or directory
- why isn't the src for the kernel-module part of the VirtualBox-OSE-kmod
package? That how it's done for all the other kmods. But maybe doing what you
might have some benefits as well (smaller srpms mainly).
- find a few small changes (untested, obviously) for the kmod spec file in
attached patch; some of them are cosmetic, others fix a corner case where only
the akmod package gets build
- (In reply to comment #0)
[...] I'm interested in EPEL branch.
We haven't worked
out how to support kmods in the EL branch at all. I got a bit
disappointed with and distracted from the whole EL idea, as a lot of people
wanted it, but only a few helped -- and besides me all of them only showed
interest in their own packages; nobody helped to bring the repo as a whole up
and forward
--
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
4:17 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 285] Review Request: VirtualBox-OSE - A general-purpose full virtualizer for PC hardware
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=285
--- Comment #3 from Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler(a)chello.at> 2009-01-02 17:17:14 ---
* For the first thing, this stuff apparently wants a 32-bit toolchain on
x86_64. That sucks. x86_64 packages should be really x86_64, not mixed 32/64
bits. What 32-bit stuff is this trying to build? Support for 32-bit guests? Or
just host stuff they were too lazy to port?
* I'd suggest BRing qt4-devel instead of qt-devel >= 1:4, the virtual Provides
exists for a reason. (It might also allow building against qt4 on EL if they
drop support for Qt 3, though the problem is that EL5 includes an ancient qt4
(4.2), so EPEL can't ship anything newer due to the policy not to replace RHEL
packages. And replacing EL5's qt4 in RPM Fusion isn't allowed either, for the
same reason.) (Unfortunately, qt3-devel was added only during the transition,
so you'll still have to use qt-devel < 1:4 to get Qt 3 for EL.)
--
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
12:36 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 285] Review Request: VirtualBox-OSE - A general-purpose full virtualizer for PC hardware
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=285
--- Comment #4 from Lubomir Rintel <lkundrak(a)v3.sk> 2009-01-11 13:36:33 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
Created an attachment (id=67)
-->
(http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/attachment.cgi?id=67) [details]
Small improvements for VirtualBox-OSE-kmod.spec
Just a few notes (I just wanted to look at the kmod):
- I could not rebuild VirtualBox-OSE-2.1.0-1.fc10.src.rpm on F10, x86_64:
Fixed.
- why isn't the src for the kernel-module part of the
VirtualBox-OSE-kmod
package? That how it's done for all the other kmods. But maybe doing what you
might have some benefits as well (smaller srpms mainly).
Smaller srpms were not a motivation. Honestly, I was only aware of drawbacks :)
Such as needlessly rebuilding both packages when in need of patching the kmod
(which happened now).
However, the buildable module source tree is generated during the build of the
main package. It can't be easily decoupled from the main package build, so
solving it this way seemed sane to me.
- find a few small changes (untested, obviously) for the kmod spec
file in
attached patch; some of them are cosmetic, others fix a corner case where only
the akmod package gets build
Thanks, Applied.
(In reply to comment #3)
* For the first thing, this stuff apparently wants a 32-bit toolchain
on
x86_64. That sucks. x86_64 packages should be really x86_64, not mixed 32/64
bits. What 32-bit stuff is this trying to build? Support for 32-bit guests? Or
just host stuff they were too lazy to port?
It's just tests. I disabled the check and 32bit tests in 64bit build, but am
not very happy about it. I'm wondering if mock used by plague would allow us to
depend on glibc-devel.i386 and let us install it?
* I'd suggest BRing qt4-devel instead of qt-devel >= 1:4, the
virtual Provides
exists for a reason. (It might also allow building against qt4 on EL if they
drop support for Qt 3, though the problem is that EL5 includes an ancient qt4
(4.2), so EPEL can't ship anything newer due to the policy not to replace RHEL
packages. And replacing EL5's qt4 in RPM Fusion isn't allowed either, for the
same reason.) (Unfortunately, qt3-devel was added only during the transition,
so you'll still have to use qt-devel < 1:4 to get Qt 3 for EL.)
Done.
New package (built on Fedora 10/x86_64, unfortunately I did not have an
opportunity to run it). Apart from the issues pointed out above it fixes a
vboxnetflt module kernel panic (triggerable only on EL-5).
Main package:
SPEC: http://v3.sk/~lkundrak/SPECS/VirtualBox-OSE.spec
SRPM: http://v3.sk/~lkundrak/SRPMS/VirtualBox-OSE-2.1.0-2.fc10.src.rpm
Kernel module:
SPEC: http://v3.sk/~lkundrak/SPECS/VirtualBox-OSE-kmod.spec
SRPM: http://v3.sk/~lkundrak/SRPMS/VirtualBox-OSE-kmod-2.1.0-2.fc10.src.rpm
--
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
12:56 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 285] Review Request: VirtualBox-OSE - A general-purpose full virtualizer for PC hardware
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=285
Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora(a)leemhuis.info> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |fedora(a)leemhuis.info
--- Comment #5 from Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora(a)leemhuis.info> 2009-01-11 13:56:26
---
(In reply to comment #4)
(In reply to comment #2)
> Created an attachment (id=67)
-->
(http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/attachment.cgi?id=67) [details] [details]
> Small improvements for VirtualBox-OSE-kmod.spec
> Just a few notes (I just wanted to look at the kmod):
> - I could not rebuild VirtualBox-OSE-2.1.0-1.fc10.src.rpm on F10, x86_64:
Fixed.
thx
> - why isn't the src for the kernel-module part of the
VirtualBox-OSE-kmod
> package? That how it's done for all the other kmods. But maybe doing what you
> might have some benefits as well (smaller srpms mainly).
Smaller srpms were not a motivation.
But they might make things easier/nicer for other kmods. But that is a
different topic and would need to be discussed somewhere else
Honestly, I was only aware of drawbacks :)
Such as needlessly rebuilding both packages when in need of patching the kmod
(which happened now).
Can't follow. What prevents you from applying patches to the kmod sources after
copying them into the rpm builddir?
However, the buildable module source tree is generated during the
build of the
main package. It can't be easily decoupled from the main package build, so
solving it this way seemed sane to me.
Well, the nvidia or fglrx maintainers manually strip them; that a little bit
more work afaics, but works.
But whatever, I'm fine with this scheme. Just one remaining question to the
subscribers of rpmfusion-package-review: Is everybody fine with the package
suffix "-kmodsrc"?
(In reply to comment #3)
[...]
I'm wondering if mock used by plague would allow us to
depend on glibc-devel.i386 and let us install it?
Right now all ix86 packages get excluded. But that could be changed if there
are good reasons to.
--
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
6:11 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 285] Review Request: VirtualBox-OSE - A general-purpose full virtualizer for PC hardware
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=285
--- Comment #6 from Lubomir Rintel <lkundrak(a)v3.sk> 2009-01-24 19:11:41 ---
Updated to 2.1.2. No big changes in SPEC file apart from version bump. It needs
newer kBuild though; it's already built and submitted into Fedora testing.
Main package:
SPEC: http://v3.sk/~lkundrak/SPECS/VirtualBox-OSE.spec
SRPM: http://v3.sk/~lkundrak/SRPMS/VirtualBox-OSE-2.1.2-1.el5.src.rpm
Kernel module:
SPEC: http://v3.sk/~lkundrak/SPECS/VirtualBox-OSE-kmod.spec
SRPM: http://v3.sk/~lkundrak/SRPMS/VirtualBox-OSE-kmod-2.1.2-1.el5.src.rpm
--
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
10:12 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 285] Review Request: VirtualBox-OSE - A general-purpose full virtualizer for PC hardware
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=285
--- Comment #7 from Xavier Lamien <lxtnow(a)gmail.com> 2009-01-25 11:12:04 ---
Excellent, let me check that one too.
--
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
8:17 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 285] Review Request: VirtualBox-OSE - A general-purpose full virtualizer for PC hardware
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=285
--- Comment #8 from Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora(a)leemhuis.info> 2009-01-27 09:17:45
---
When rebuilding VirtualBox-OSE-2.1.2-1.el5.src.rpm on F10 x86_64:
+ ./configure --disable-kmods --with-gcc-compat=gcc34 --disable-qt3
Unrecognized option "--with-gcc-compat=gcc34"
--
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
7:41 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 285] Review Request: VirtualBox-OSE - A general-purpose full virtualizer for PC hardware
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=285
Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski <rpm(a)greysector.net> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |rpm(a)greysector.net
--- Comment #9 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski <rpm(a)greysector.net>
2009-01-28 20:41:31 ---
(In reply to comment #8)
When rebuilding VirtualBox-OSE-2.1.2-1.el5.src.rpm on F10 x86_64:
> + ./configure --disable-kmods --with-gcc-compat=gcc34 --disable-qt3
> Unrecognized option "--with-gcc-compat=gcc34"
After fixing that, the build fails on F-9 x86_64 with:
Config.kmk:117: *** You must update kBuild! KMK_REVISION=2018
KBUILD_KMK_REVISION=0 KBUILD_PATH=/usr/share/kBuild. Stop.
so I think you need to have BuildRequires: kBuild >= 0.1.5-1
--
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
1:53 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 285] Review Request: VirtualBox-OSE - A general-purpose full virtualizer for PC hardware
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=285
--- Comment #10 from Lubomir Rintel <lkundrak(a)v3.sk> 2009-02-05 14:53:01 ---
Main package:
SPEC: http://v3.sk/~lkundrak/SPECS/VirtualBox-OSE.spec
SRPM: http://v3.sk/~lkundrak/SRPMS/VirtualBox-OSE-2.1.2-2.el5.src.rpm
Kernel module (remains the same):
SPEC: http://v3.sk/~lkundrak/SPECS/VirtualBox-OSE-kmod.spec
SRPM: http://v3.sk/~lkundrak/SRPMS/VirtualBox-OSE-kmod-2.1.2-1.el5.src.rpm
--
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
9:59 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 285] Review Request: VirtualBox-OSE - A general-purpose full virtualizer for PC hardware
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=285
--- Comment #11 from Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora(a)leemhuis.info> 2009-02-07 10:59:40
---
(In reply to comment #10)
fails in mock x86-64 on and for F10 here:
+ ./configure --disable-kmods --disable-qt3
Checking for environment:
Determined build machine: linux.amd64, target machine: linux.amd64, OK.
Checking for kBuild:
** kmk (variable KBUILDDIR) not found!
Compiles fine wher build without mock
--
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
10:51 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 285] Review Request: VirtualBox-OSE - A general-purpose full virtualizer for PC hardware
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=285
--- Comment #12 from Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora(a)leemhuis.info> 2009-02-07 11:51:30
---
Hmmm, VirtualBox-OSE-kmodsrc contains a lot of files; akmod users will all have
them on the disk and it make the metadata bigger.
Not sure, but it thus might be wiser to put the kernel module sources into a
(compressed) tarball, ship that in VirtualBox-OSE-kmodsrc instead and extract
the archive in %prep of VirtualBox-OSE-kmod
--
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
7:59 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 285] Review Request: VirtualBox-OSE - A general-purpose full virtualizer for PC hardware
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=285
--- Comment #13 from Lubomir Rintel <lkundrak(a)v3.sk> 2009-03-14 20:59:39 ---
(In reply to comment #11)
(In reply to comment #10)
> SRPM: http://v3.sk/~lkundrak/SRPMS/VirtualBox-OSE-2.1.2-2.el5.src.rpm
fails in mock x86-64 on and for F10 here:
+ ./configure --disable-kmods --disable-qt3
Checking for environment:
Determined build machine: linux.amd64, target machine: linux.amd64, OK.
Checking for kBuild:
** kmk (variable KBUILDDIR) not found!
I can't reproduce this (built fine in fedora-devel-i386 for me) and don't have
x86_64. If this still happens, could you please replace "./configure" with
"bash -x ./configure" and attach the log here?
(In reply to comment #12)
Hmmm, VirtualBox-OSE-kmodsrc contains a lot of files; akmod users
will all have
them on the disk and it make the metadata bigger.
Not sure, but it thus might be wiser to put the kernel module sources into a
(compressed) tarball, ship that in VirtualBox-OSE-kmodsrc instead and extract
the archive in %prep of VirtualBox-OSE-kmod
I think this is a good idea and have implemented it (the size of the packed
source is 312K vs. 6.5M uncompressed).
Main package:
SPEC: http://v3.sk/~lkundrak/SPECS/VirtualBox-OSE.spec
SRPM: http://v3.sk/~lkundrak/SRPMS/VirtualBox-OSE-2.1.4-1.fc11.src.rpm
Kernel module:
SPEC: http://v3.sk/~lkundrak/SPECS/VirtualBox-OSE-kmod.spec
SRPM: http://v3.sk/~lkundrak/SRPMS/VirtualBox-OSE-kmod-2.1.4-1.fc11.src.rpm
(Tested in Rawhide, there are no issues known to me. I didn't test the kmodsrc
packing change, because of the build taking too long and
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=478463)
--
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
12:34 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 285] Review Request: VirtualBox-OSE - A general-purpose full virtualizer for PC hardware
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=285
liangsuilong <liangsuilong(a)gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |liangsuilong(a)gmail.com
--- Comment #14 from liangsuilong <liangsuilong(a)gmail.com> 2009-03-18 01:34:44 ---
Now VirtualBox has upstreamed to 2.2.0-beta1. I think the
packager should be make good preparation for new version.
I really hope VirtualBox-OSE will be added into repository
soon.
Good luck to you!
--
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
2:12 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 285] Review Request: VirtualBox-OSE - A general-purpose full virtualizer for PC hardware
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=285
--- Comment #15 from Lubomir Rintel <lkundrak(a)v3.sk> 2009-03-23 15:12:57 ---
Ping.
Anyone to do a full review?
Xavier?
--
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
11:54 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 285] Review Request: VirtualBox-OSE - A general-purpose full virtualizer for PC hardware
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=285
--- Comment #16 from Xavier Lamien <lxtnow(a)gmail.com> 2009-03-28 12:54:11 ---
working this wk on.
--
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
3:23 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 285] Review Request: VirtualBox-OSE - A general-purpose full virtualizer for PC hardware
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=285
--- Comment #17 from Lubomir Rintel <lkundrak(a)v3.sk> 2009-03-30 17:23:20 ---
Main package:
SPEC: http://v3.sk/~lkundrak/SPECS/VirtualBox-OSE.spec
SRPM: http://v3.sk/~lkundrak/SRPMS/VirtualBox-OSE-2.1.4-2.fc11.src.rpm
Kernel module (stays the same):
SPEC: http://v3.sk/~lkundrak/SPECS/VirtualBox-OSE-kmod.spec
SRPM: http://v3.sk/~lkundrak/SRPMS/VirtualBox-OSE-kmod-2.1.4-1.fc11.src.rpm
--
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
10:15 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 285] Review Request: VirtualBox-OSE - A general-purpose full virtualizer for PC hardware
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=285
--- Comment #18 from Xavier Lamien <lxtnow(a)gmail.com> 2009-04-06 00:15:15 ---
hmm... I've got a couple of error which need fixes.
VirtualBox-OSE-2.1.4-2.fc11.i586 :
------------------------------------
36 unstripped-binary-or-object (easy fix)
26 rpath issues (you'll need to check kbuild files)
03 setuid on binaries (easy fix)
VirtualBox-OSE-devel-2.1.4-2.fc11.i586 :
-----------------------------------------
17 executable scripts issues (easy fix)
VirtualBox-OSE-guest-2.1.4-2.fc11.i586 :
-----------------------------------------
04 unstripped binary (easy fix)
02 executable files in modules sub-dir /etc/sysconfig/modules
Package tree and dependencies :
------------------------------------
Currently -guest and main packages provide the same virtual (-kmod-common's)
which's harmless at first sight but, imply to install main package even on the
guest system.
As kmod package requires -kmod-common, that's sound fair enough as kmod package
is shipped with both main vboxdrv and Guest drivers.
The current state is when trying to install -guest, it's looking for kmod
package which's looking for -kmod-common which pull down main package and
-guest's.
Also note that udev's rule (kmod common file) which's required by vboxdrv is
shipped by main package.
Actually, the easiest way to avoid a such thing is to build a
kmod-VirtualBox-OSE and kmod-VirtualBox-OSE-GuestAddition packages.
That will also avoid to install vboxdrv on guest which is useless.
We could also remove virtual on -kmod-common and build them for real
by setting up something like this,
VirtualBox-OSE-kmod-common providing :
%config %{_sysconfdir}/udev/rules.d/90-vboxdrv.rules
%config %{_sysconfdir}/sysconfig/modules/%{name}.modules
VirtualBox-OSE-GuestAddition-kmod-common providing :
%config %{_sysconfdir}/sysconfig/modules/%{name}-guest.modules
kmod-VirtualBox-OSE providing :
vboxdrv
kmod-VirtualBox-OSE-GuestAddition :
vboxnetflt
vboxadd
vboxvfs
NVR issues :
----------------------
Provides and requires against main or sub packages tree have to be set as
follow to avoid brake package dependencies :
$package_name = %{version}-%{release}
Naming issue :
---------------------
I'd prefer you keep the current complete name of guest addition
to match with upstream.
Package conflict issue :
----------------------------
We need to prevent conflict against VirtualBox closed-source packages
Adding some conflicts should be good enough.
--
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
10:35 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 285] Review Request: VirtualBox-OSE - A general-purpose full virtualizer for PC hardware
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=285
--- Comment #19 from Lubomir Rintel <lkundrak(a)v3.sk> 2009-04-06 00:35:48 ---
(In reply to comment #18)
hmm... I've got a couple of error which need fixes.
VirtualBox-OSE-2.1.4-2.fc11.i586 :
------------------------------------
36 unstripped-binary-or-object (easy fix)
I won't call this easy fix. We need to select what to strip and what not. I
don't see a nice way to prevent find-debuginfo from stripping what it shouldn't
other than chmod -x -ing it and then set it back to executable via %attr, which
is not particularly elegant. Do you insist on this?
26 rpath issues (you'll need to check kbuild files)
I was under impression rpaths are used here (and we are not having only the
standard rpaths), but I'll check and see what can be done.
03 setuid on binaries (easy fix)
This was upstream decision and I'd be careful to change that. On the other
hand, having the beast completely setuid really doesn't sound much sane to me.
What would you do with that? Use consolehelper? (well, you see, PolicyKit is
probably not going to happen ;)
VirtualBox-OSE-devel-2.1.4-2.fc11.i586 :
-----------------------------------------
17 executable scripts issues (easy fix)
Will take a look.
VirtualBox-OSE-guest-2.1.4-2.fc11.i586 :
-----------------------------------------
04 unstripped binary (easy fix)
See above.
02 executable files in modules sub-dir /etc/sysconfig/modules
This makes sense to be executable, no?
Package tree and dependencies :
------------------------------------
Currently -guest and main packages provide the same virtual (-kmod-common's)
which's harmless at first sight but, imply to install main package even on the
guest system.
As kmod package requires -kmod-common, that's sound fair enough as kmod package
is shipped with both main vboxdrv and Guest drivers.
The current state is when trying to install -guest, it's looking for kmod
package which's looking for -kmod-common which pull down main package and
-guest's.
This sounds like a yum (a bug?) glitch to me. I would not expect such behavior,
will need to check.
Also note that udev's rule (kmod common file) which's
required by vboxdrv is
shipped by main package.
And only main package makes use of vboxdrv. Makes sense to me.
Actually, the easiest way to avoid a such thing is to build a
kmod-VirtualBox-OSE and kmod-VirtualBox-OSE-GuestAddition packages.
That will also avoid to install vboxdrv on guest which is useless.
Sounds like too much overhead to me and I'd prefer to avoid as much as I can.
We could also remove virtual on -kmod-common and build them for real
by setting up something like this,
VirtualBox-OSE-kmod-common providing :
%config %{_sysconfdir}/udev/rules.d/90-vboxdrv.rules
%config %{_sysconfdir}/sysconfig/modules/%{name}.modules
VirtualBox-OSE-GuestAddition-kmod-common providing :
%config %{_sysconfdir}/sysconfig/modules/%{name}-guest.modules
kmod-VirtualBox-OSE providing :
vboxdrv
kmod-VirtualBox-OSE-GuestAddition :
vboxnetflt
vboxadd
vboxvfs
I'd vehemently protest splitting it up even more. Will have to figure the
-common dependency issue though.
NVR issues :
----------------------
Provides and requires against main or sub packages tree have to be set as
follow to avoid brake package dependencies :
$package_name = %{version}-%{release}
Will fix.
Naming issue :
---------------------
I'd prefer you keep the current complete name of guest addition
to match with upstream.
Which is ...?
Package conflict issue :
----------------------------
We need to prevent conflict against VirtualBox closed-source packages
Adding some conflicts should be good enough.
We're not shipping VirtualBox closed source in RPMFusion. I'd say file
conflicts are enough here (and we indeed do have those).
Much thanks for the review so far, I'll work on new packages and post them here
in a couple of days.
--
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
10:46 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 285] Review Request: VirtualBox-OSE - A general-purpose full virtualizer for PC hardware
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=285
Till Maas <opensource(a)till.name> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |opensource(a)till.name
--- Comment #20 from Till Maas <opensource(a)till.name> 2009-04-06 00:46:30 ---
In reply to comment #19
03 setuid on binaries (easy fix)
This was upstream decision and I'd be careful to change that. On the other
hand, having the beast completely setuid really doesn't sound much sane to me.
What would you do with that? Use consolehelper? (well, you see, PolicyKit is
probably not going to happen ;)
File capabilities (man setcap) are afaik what should be used instead of suid
binaries if possible.
--
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
4:35 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 285] Review Request: VirtualBox-OSE - A general-purpose full virtualizer for PC hardware
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=285
--- Comment #21 from Lubomir Rintel <lkundrak(a)v3.sk> 2009-04-12 18:35:33 ---
(In reply to comment #19)
> 26 rpath issues (you'll need to check kbuild files)
I was under impression rpaths are used here (and we are not having only the
standard rpaths), but I'll check and see what can be done.
/usr/lib/virtualbox/VirtualBox.so uses RPATH to locate other .so-s in
/usr/lib/virtualbox. I'm not going to remove those.
> 03 setuid on binaries (easy fix)
This was upstream decision and I'd be careful to change that. On the other
hand, having the beast completely setuid really doesn't sound much sane to me.
What would you do with that? Use consolehelper? (well, you see, PolicyKit is
probably not going to happen ;)
> VirtualBox-OSE-devel-2.1.4-2.fc11.i586 :
> -----------------------------------------
> 17 executable scripts issues (easy fix)
Will take a look.
Fixed.
> VirtualBox-OSE-guest-2.1.4-2.fc11.i586 :
> -----------------------------------------
> 04 unstripped binary (easy fix)
See above.
> 02 executable files in modules sub-dir /etc/sysconfig/modules
This makes sense to be executable, no?
Yes, other files there are executable as well.
> Package tree and dependencies :
> ------------------------------------
> Currently -guest and main packages provide the same virtual (-kmod-common's)
> which's harmless at first sight but, imply to install main package even on the
> guest system.
> As kmod package requires -kmod-common, that's sound fair enough as kmod package
> is shipped with both main vboxdrv and Guest drivers.
> The current state is when trying to install -guest, it's looking for kmod
> package which's looking for -kmod-common which pull down main package and
> -guest's.
This sounds like a yum (a bug?) glitch to me. I would not expect such behavior,
will need to check.
> Also note that udev's rule (kmod common file) which's required by vboxdrv
is
> shipped by main package.
And only main package makes use of vboxdrv. Makes sense to me.
> Actually, the easiest way to avoid a such thing is to build a
> kmod-VirtualBox-OSE and kmod-VirtualBox-OSE-GuestAddition packages.
> That will also avoid to install vboxdrv on guest which is useless.
Sounds like too much overhead to me and I'd prefer to avoid as much as I can.
So I tried that and I could not reproduce your problem:
[root@localhost vboxrepo]# yum install VirtualBox-OSE-guest
...
Installing:
VirtualBox-OSE-guest i586
2.1.4-2.fc11 vbox
483 k
Installing for dependencies:
kmod-VirtualBox-OSE i586
2.1.4-1.fc11 vbox
2.9 k
kmod-VirtualBox-OSE-2.6.29.1-54.fc11.i586 i586
2.1.4-1.fc11 vbox
134 k
I'm not going to split the 134k package even more, hope you understand that :)
Given you haven't replied on the rest, I'm assuming you don't object. Also,
new
version is out, but I'm not going to update the reviewed package since I've
already wasted too much time doing that four times without a single line of
feedback from you. I hope you understand that.
(In reply to comment #20)
In reply to comment #19
> 03 setuid on binaries (easy fix)
This was upstream decision and I'd be careful to change that. On the other
hand, having the beast completely setuid really doesn't sound much sane to me.
What would you do with that? Use consolehelper? (well, you see, PolicyKit is
probably not going to happen ;)
File capabilities (man setcap) are afaik what should be used instead of suid
binaries if possible.
Finally this. I did nothing here as well :)
I've prepared spec file that would set capabilities on file and got this:
RPM build errors:
File capability support not built in
File capability support not built in
File capability support not built in
What VirtualBox does with the setuid bit is dropping the all the capabilities
besides raw network access for nat and icmp with "all-eip cap_net_raw+ep" and
then drops setuid. I believe filesystem capabilities would be nicer, but this
is not all that bad and I'd prefer to stick with it before our rpm gains
filesystem capabilities support. Not deviating from upstream is a strong
argument as well.
Sooooo... the new package (no big changes, everything explained though)
Main package:
SPEC: http://v3.sk/~lkundrak/SPECS/VirtualBox-OSE.spec
SRPM: http://v3.sk/~lkundrak/SRPMS/VirtualBox-OSE-2.1.4-3.fc11.src.rpm
Kernel module (stays the same):
SPEC: http://v3.sk/~lkundrak/SPECS/VirtualBox-OSE-kmod.spec
SRPM: http://v3.sk/~lkundrak/SRPMS/VirtualBox-OSE-kmod-2.1.4-1.fc11.src.rpm
--
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
1:06 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 285] Review Request: VirtualBox-OSE - A general-purpose full virtualizer for PC hardware
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=285
--- Comment #22 from Alexey Torkhov <atorkhov(a)gmail.com> 2009-04-16 15:06:07 ---
(In reply to comment #21)
(In reply to comment #19)
> > 26 rpath issues (you'll need to check kbuild files)
>
> I was under impression rpaths are used here (and we are not having only the
> standard rpaths), but I'll check and see what can be done.
/usr/lib/virtualbox/VirtualBox.so uses RPATH to locate other .so-s in
/usr/lib/virtualbox. I'm not going to remove those.
Why not remove rpath and add custom search path into /etc/ld.so.conf.d?
--
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
1:25 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 285] Review Request: VirtualBox-OSE - A general-purpose full virtualizer for PC hardware
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=285
--- Comment #23 from Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora(a)leemhuis.info> 2009-04-16 15:25:27
---
(In reply to comment #22)
Why not remove rpath and add custom search path into
/etc/ld.so.conf.d?
Why should that be worth the work here?
And which of the two solutions is more reliable and fool-proof against
miss-configuration or other problems?
--
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
9:25 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 285] Review Request: VirtualBox-OSE - A general-purpose full virtualizer for PC hardware
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=285
--- Comment #24 from Alexey Torkhov <atorkhov(a)gmail.com> 2009-04-16 23:25:40 ---
(In reply to comment #23)
(In reply to comment #22)
> Why not remove rpath and add custom search path into /etc/ld.so.conf.d?
Why should that be worth the work here?
Because guidelines strictly forbid the usage of rpath. And solution seems
pretty simple.
And which of the two solutions is more reliable and fool-proof
against
miss-configuration or other problems?
It works for a bunch of packets in Fedora. And it will be more difficult to
override any lib there with rpath in case of need.
Anyway, review ticket is not the place for such discussions, I think.
--
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
1:41 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 285] Review Request: VirtualBox-OSE - A general-purpose full virtualizer for PC hardware
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=285
--- Comment #25 from Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler(a)chello.at> 2009-04-17 15:41:32 ---
Because guidelines strictly forbid the usage of rpath.
Yet there isn't really a better solution for libraries in nonstandard
directories and AFAIK there are already packages using rpath for that purpose.
--
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
5:53 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 285] Review Request: VirtualBox-OSE - A general-purpose full virtualizer for PC hardware
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=285
Xavier Lamien <lxtnow(a)gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blocks| |4
--- Comment #26 from Xavier Lamien <lxtnow(a)gmail.com> 2009-04-19 19:53:58 ---
Sorry for the late on that one but i had to install a complete set of
host/Guest to try all those things out.
The packages dependencies are fine in my side now.
I'm not completely for a one kmod package but it doesn't really matter and
doesn't brake anything.
well, go ahead and import those packages.
--
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
12:13 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 285] Review Request: VirtualBox-OSE - A general-purpose full virtualizer for PC hardware
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=285
Lubomir Rintel <lkundrak(a)v3.sk> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blocks| |33
--- Comment #27 from Lubomir Rintel <lkundrak(a)v3.sk> 2009-04-20 14:13:52 ---
Thanks for the review Xavier
Package CVS request
======================
Package Name: VirtualBox-OSE
Short Description: - A general-purpose full virtualizer for PC hardware
Owners: lkundrak, laxathom
Branches: F-10 F-11 EL-5
License tag: free
--
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
4:47 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 285] Review Request: VirtualBox-OSE - A general-purpose full virtualizer for PC hardware
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=285
--- Comment #28 from Lubomir Rintel <lkundrak(a)v3.sk> 2009-04-21 06:47:30 ---
Thanks for the review Xavier
Package CVS request
======================
Package Name: VirtualBox-OSE
Short Description: - A general-purpose full virtualizer for PC hardware
Owners: lkundrak, laxathom
Branches: F-10 F-11 EL-5
License tag: free
Package CVS request
======================
Package Name: VirtualBox-OSE-kmod
Short Description: Kernel module for VirtualBox-OSE
Owners: lkundrak, laxathom
Branches: F-10 F-11 EL-5
License tag: free
--
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
5:03 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 285] Review Request: VirtualBox-OSE - A general-purpose full virtualizer for PC hardware
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=285
Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora(a)leemhuis.info> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blocks|33 |
--- Comment #29 from Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora(a)leemhuis.info> 2009-04-21 07:03:30
---
CVS done, a few comments:
(In reply to comment #28)
Owners: lkundrak, laxathom
* each package can only have one owner; I assume it's you and added laxathom as
InitialCC
Branches: F-10 F-11 EL-5
* we haven't branched for F-11 yet; I assume we'll do it a few days before F-11
comes out, as everything else makes a lot of work to configure the builders
that likely is not worth it
* I didn't branch for EL-5 yet; see comment #2; In short
* I'm still inclined to drop the whole idea with the EL repo if nobody steps
up and feel responsible for it
* we need to work out how to deal with kmods in EL land; we have three choices
afaics:
1) go with the stuff from EL-5 (no akmods, a bit different from the stuff we
use for recent Fedora versions)
2) use the same stuff we use in recent Fedora versions
3) a mix of what's in EL-5 and recent Fedora versions
I (right now) prefer solution 3, but that option might change when looking at
the details
--
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
9:08 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 285] Review Request: VirtualBox-OSE - A general-purpose full virtualizer for PC hardware
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=285
--- Comment #30 from Xavier Lamien <lxtnow(a)gmail.com> 2009-04-21 11:08:16 ---
(In reply to comment #28)
Owners: lkundrak, laxathom
* each package can only have one owner; I assume it's you and
added laxathom as
InitialCC
Added second owner.
--
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
9:26 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 285] Review Request: VirtualBox-OSE - A general-purpose full virtualizer for PC hardware
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=285
--- Comment #31 from Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora(a)leemhuis.info> 2009-04-21 11:26:44
---
(In reply to comment #30)
(In reply to comment #28)
> Owners: lkundrak, laxathom
> * each package can only have one owner; I assume it's you and added laxathom as
> InitialCC
Added second owner.
/me looks at
http://cvs.rpmfusion.org/viewvc/owners/owners.list?root=free&view=markup
and finds
Fedora|VirtualBox-OSE|A [...]hardware|lkundrak@v3.sk,lxtnow(a)gmail.com||
That afaik does not work and breaks the bugzilla sync script from mschwendt, as
every package can only have one owner in bugzilla.
--
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
9:40 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 285] Review Request: VirtualBox-OSE - A general-purpose full virtualizer for PC hardware
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=285
--- Comment #32 from Lubomir Rintel <lkundrak(a)v3.sk> 2009-04-21 11:40:22 ---
Imported and built for Raw Hide.
F-10 is pending the stable kBuild update.
Will upgrade to 2.2 this weekend.
--
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
10:48 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 285] Review Request: VirtualBox-OSE - A general-purpose full virtualizer for PC hardware
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=285
--- Comment #33 from Xavier Lamien <lxtnow(a)gmail.com> 2009-04-21 12:48:51 ---
Can i have a look on that script ?
--
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
11:01 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 285] Review Request: VirtualBox-OSE - A general-purpose full virtualizer for PC hardware
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=285
--- Comment #34 from Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora(a)leemhuis.info> 2009-04-21 13:01:36
---
(In reply to comment #33)
Can i have a look on that script ?
mschwendt reads the list, but asking him directly for it might be best and
safest
--
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
1:23 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 285] Review Request: VirtualBox-OSE - A general-purpose full virtualizer for PC hardware
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=285
--- Comment #35 from Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora(a)leemhuis.info> 2009-04-21 15:23:06
---
@lkundrak, VirtualBox-OSE.spec contains
ExclusiveArch: %{ix86} x86_64
that makes Plague build the package for athlon and several other "x86-archs";
see
http://buildsys.rpmfusion.org/logs/fedora-development-rpmfusion_free/3589...
http://buildsys.rpmfusion.org/logs/fedora-10-rpmfusion_free/3590-VirtualB...
We normally don't want that, hence please change above line to "ExclusiveArch:
i386 x86_64" on F-10 and "ExclusiveArch: i586 x86_64" for F11 (or
ExcludeArch
ppc, ppc64 and others) to avoid that.
--
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
8:30 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 285] Review Request: VirtualBox-OSE - A general-purpose full virtualizer for PC hardware
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=285
--- Comment #36 from Lubomir Rintel <lkundrak(a)v3.sk> 2009-04-24 22:30:38 ---
(In reply to comment #35)
Done. Thanks for pointing that out.
--
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
8:44 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 285] Review Request: VirtualBox-OSE - A general-purpose full virtualizer for PC hardware
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=285
Lubomir Rintel <lkundrak(a)v3.sk> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution| |FIXED
--
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
5474
days inactive
5589
days old
rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org
37 comments
1 participants
participants (1)
-
RPM Fusion Bugzilla