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

[Sérgio Basto]

On Qua, 2016-11-30 at 23:11 +0100, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski
wrote:
> On Wednesday, 30 November 2016 at 22:10, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> > 
> > 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. 
> We know that. That was not the point.
> 
> > 
> > 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.
> No. You don't understand. Installation does not have to equal
> activation
> or loading of the modules/rules/services etc. Nicolas and I are
> trying
> to explain to you that it's most likely possible to adapt the package
> so
> that it can be installed on bare metal without any adverse effects.

what  ? can you exemplify ? man I loosing my patience  if package have 

/usr/lib/modules-load.d/VirtualBox-guest.conf
/usr/lib/systemd/system-preset/96-vbox.preset
/usr/lib/systemd/system/vboxservice.service
/usr/lib/udev/rules.d/60-vboxguest.rules
/usr/lib64/VBoxEGL.so
/usr/lib64/VBoxOGL.so
/usr/lib64/VBoxOGLarrayspu.so
/usr/lib64/VBoxOGLcrutil.so
/usr/lib64/VBoxOGLerrorspu.so
/usr/lib64/VBoxOGLfeedbackspu.so
/usr/lib64/VBoxOGLpackspu.so
/usr/lib64/VBoxOGLpassthroughspu.so
/usr/lib64/security/pam_vbox.so

etc , how you want prevent the activation ? 

else I don't want know how I shouldn't do it , I want the solution , so
please say what is the solution ? and stop make opinion about my work,
95 % of my work is correct and free of bugs , and I can't pass my time
explain why I do this or that.

you (and Nicolas) don't understand nothing how it is packaging
virtualbox and have other things to do. 

Do you want install VirtualBox-guest-additions on host . install it !
try it , don't argue with me , if we can install VirtualBox-guest-
additions on host , just remove the conflicts, why conflicts are there
in first place ?. 

And you can't question my work all the time , it is enough , I said 
YOU CANT INSTALL VirtualBox-guest-additions on host period . if you
think you can install it .


> > 
> > > 
> > > 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.
> Then do that only on EPEL7 and add a comment to the SPEC file.
> 
> > 
> > > 
> > > 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 still don't understand why having that driver present breaks
> existing
> X11 configuration if the virtual hardware for that driver isn't
> present.
> Certainly having drivers for different graphics cards on my machine
> doesn't break my configuration.
> 
> > 
> > > 
> > > 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 
> Why does that break anything?
> 
> > 
> > > 
> > > 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 . 
> You don't understand. Please stop trying to prevent guest-additions
> installation on any system and start trying to fix it so that it
> doesn't
> break anything.
> 
> Regards,
> Dominik
-- 
Sérgio M. B.