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

[Sérgio Basto]

On Qua, 2016-11-30 at 21:22 +0100, Nicolas Chauvet wrote:
> 2016-11-30 18:07 GMT+01:00 Sérgio Basto <sergio at serjux.com>:
> ....
> > 
> > The only problem is "We should avoid installation of VirtualBox-
> > guest-
> > additions on bare metal", have you any suggestion that can improve
> > this
> > solution ?

> You have wrong premise. You want to avoid the "installation" to avoid
> the conflict where you only need to avoid the "activation" of the
> guest additions, when relevant.
> So at the end it should be possible to even install the
> VirtualBox-guest-additon on bare hardware, or hypervisor or kvm
> guest,
> etc.

No, Conflicts in rpm packages was artificial, to avoid installation
of VirtualBox-guest-additions on bare metal and that was the only
propose of conflicts. 

Again, VirtualBox-guest-additions should not be installed in bare metal
or in any other place that isn't a VirtualBox vm.  Package have kernel
modules, udev rules, xinit autostart, desktop autostart, services that
try synchronize time, share clipboard, usb proxies etc , that we should
avoid install on bare metal. 

 
> Also I don't understand why you mix kvm and oracle, the action of the
> virtualbox-guest-addion is "not" relevant on kvm guest, not at all.

Systemd of RHEL7 says that Virtualization is kvm instead oracle, to
guest-additions work on EPEL7, we need add kvm rule.


> For example, if you add ConditionVirtualization=|oracle to
> vboxservice.service, you can probably add multiple ExecStartPre lines
> that have the list of modules only needed by the guest.
> Then you can drop /usr/lib/modules-load.d/VirtualBox-guest.conf.
> 
> In, fedora you are probably using modesettiing driver by default as
> Xorg driver, but you can probably use something like in nvidia
> /usr/share/X11/xorg.conf.d/vboxvideo.conf
> Section "OutputClass"
>     Identifier "vboxvideo"
>     MatchDriver "vboxvideo"
>     Driver "vboxvideo"
> EndSection
> 

No, to load of vboxvideo doesn't need that lines , that why guest-
additions breaks X11 ( I had that experience , now with new vboxvideo
model I don't know)  . 

> I'm not sure to understand why the other are bad ? For example, there
> is no conflict with udev 60-vboxguest.rules if the modules are not
> loaded.

if we copy file to udev the rules are loaded 

> So Sergio, do you understand the concept here ?

No , the question is we need make a mechanism to avoid installation
of guest-additions in host systems , old mechanism was add conflicts
between host packages and guest package, but as bug 3425 some would
like install VirtualBox also on guest . 

> i'm not givin you the final solution,here, just the path to follow.
> You will be able to remove the conflict only when all conflicting
> situation are solved.

I'm not aware of any conflict situation, we have a powerful package
(guest-additions) that (may) breaks host system . But I will test it
again (also install virtualbox in one vm , along guest-additions) . 

Best regards,
-- 
Sérgio M. B.