was -> wasn't Re: [VirtualBox] Use systemd-detect-virt to detect if we can install

[Sérgio Basto]

On Qua, 2016-11-30 at 15:26 +0100, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski
wrote:
> On Tuesday, 29 November 2016 at 22:39, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> > 
> > On Ter, 2016-11-29 at 22:16 +0100, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski
> > wrote:
> > > 
> > > On Tuesday, 29 November 2016 at 19:46, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > On Ter, 2016-11-29 at 14:17 +0100, Dominik 'Rathann'
> > > > Mierzejewski
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > could you explain the idea here? Why was there an explicit
> > > > > Conflicts:
> > > > > before and why is it better to fail the transaction if you're
> > > > > not
> > > > > running inside VirtualBox or KVM?
> > > > It is a long story, bug reports about this [2]. With this
> > > > solution
> > > > (which took sometime to figure out), we can install VirtualBox-
> > > > guest
> > > > and VirtualBox in a vm guest [1] I think in middle of bug 3425
> > > > , I
> > > > realize that the root of the problem is we can't
> > > > install VirtualBox-
> > > > guest-additions in master (host) system because breaks X11, etc
> > > > . 
> > > > So instead use an artificial rpm conflicts, BTW the solution
> > > > *wasn't*
> > > > made my me, it was already there when I arrived, I check in
> > > > %pre
> > > > if 
> > > > 
> > > >    $(systemd-detect-virt | grep -iP "oracle|kvm" -c) -eq 0
> > > > 
> > > > if systemd-detect-virt doesn't say that is in one oracle or kvm
> > > > vm
> > > > , I
> > > > don't let package (VirtualBox-guest-additions) be installed .
> > > > 
> > > > I also check kvm because in epel7 vbox vm, systemd-detect-virt
> > > > says
> > > > that is in kvm instead oracle ...
> > > >  
> > > > From now on, we may install VirtualBox and VirtualBox-guest-
> > > > additions
> > > > under a vm , that is the main goal of this change . 
> > > > 
> > > > Have you any suggestion or something where I can improve ? 
> > > Ok, I read bug 3425. You shouldn't forbid installation of
> > > VirtualBox-guest-additions on bare metal by failing in %pre.
> > > I still don't understand why it can't be installed. From what was
> > > written in the bug report, you only need to make sure that either
> > > bothi vboxvideo kmod and X11 driver are present or none of them.
> > No, VirtualBox-guest-additions breaks hosts (that is the main
> > problem). 
> > We must forbid installation of VirtualBox-guest-additions on bare
> > metal
> > else (at least) X11 won't start, that is the point . 
> Breaks hosts how? Why won't X11 start, then? What about Wayland?

Now it should break less because I add to vboxservice.service the
rules 
ConditionVirtualization=|kvm
ConditionVirtualization=|oracle
also vboxvideo.so was remove on fedoras but not in epel7

but try install it in your machine (without these rules) and find out
yourself.

dnf repoquery VirtualBox-guest-additions-5.1.10-1.fc23 -l

/etc/X11/xinit/xinitrc.d/98vboxadd-xclient.sh (bad)
/etc/xdg/autostart/vboxclient.desktop  (bad)
/usr/bin/VBoxClient
/usr/bin/VBoxClient-all
/usr/bin/VBoxControl
/usr/lib/modules-load.d/VirtualBox-guest.conf (bad)
/usr/lib/systemd/system-preset/96-vbox.preset
/usr/lib/systemd/system/vboxservice.service (bad)
/usr/lib/udev/rules.d/60-vboxguest.rules (bad)
/usr/lib64/VBoxEGL.so (bad)
/usr/lib64/VBoxOGL.so (bad)
/usr/lib64/VBoxOGLarrayspu.so (bad)
/usr/lib64/VBoxOGLcrutil.so (bad)
/usr/lib64/VBoxOGLerrorspu.so (bad)
/usr/lib64/VBoxOGLfeedbackspu.so (bad)
/usr/lib64/VBoxOGLpackspu.so (bad)
/usr/lib64/VBoxOGLpassthroughspu.so (bad)
/usr/lib64/security/pam_vbox.so (bad)
/usr/sbin/VBoxService (bad)
/usr/sbin/mount.vboxsf
/usr/share/licenses/VirtualBox-guest-additions
/usr/share/licenses/VirtualBox-guest-additions/COPYING
/usr/share/licenses/VirtualBox-guest-additions/COPYING.CDDL


> > Previous solution was make VirtualBox conflicts with VirtualBox-
> > guest-
> > additions. So end user, ends by choose install VirtualBox in host,
> > but
> > by that (conflicts solution) both packages can't also be installed
> > in a
> > guest system, which is fixed with this brilliant solution. 
> Failing in %pre, which happens during dnf/rpm transation *after* the
> package had been downloaded already is not brilliant at all in my
> opinion.
> 
> I'd like to think there is a better way, but I first need to
> understand
> the issue.

The only problem is "We should avoid installation of VirtualBox-guest-
additions on bare metal", have you any suggestion that can improve this
solution ? 


> Regards,
> Dominik
-- 
Sérgio M. B.