[opensuse-factory] Add VBoxGuestAdditions.iso to non-free
Sorry for top posting but I just subscribed. Stephan Kulow wrote:
What I wonder: what is the advantage of having an .iso in the distribution that can be downloaded 1:1 from other sources?
For the same reason we have Acrobat Reader, Opera, Flash player, SUN JRE / JDK and the other stuff in there. It is easier to install, is installed globally instead of a per user base and one gets automatic updates. Last but not least it does no harm. Or in other words: What is the problem with including it in the non-oss repo. I see only advantages. Ciro Iriarte wrote:
I don't see the point, the ISO is provided with VirtualBox, if the distribution provides it, the install procedure would be as annoying as it's today. On the other hand, adding the modules as KMP packages would be nice (given their license allow repackaging).
No, the iso is currently provided only with the binary VirtualBox version (iirc, I might be wrong) or available as separate download which had to be done per user. Also I fail to see how the availability of that .iso would make the installation procedure "annoying" since neither would anyone force you to use it nor would it do more than placing said .iso into /usr/share/virtualbox. Further those KMP packages you want to have are already available since quite a few versions. The problem with them is that they sometimes don't work so one has to compile the additions manually and obviously they work only for openSUSE and therefore not for any other Linux, BSD, Windows, ... so one needs the VBoxGuestAdditions.iso there to build them. In short: besides the obvious advantages of having something installable via package management are there any disadvantages? I honestly fail to see some. Regards, Stephan. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org
Stephan Kleine wrote:
Sorry for top posting but I just subscribed.
Stephan Kulow wrote:
What I wonder: what is the advantage of having an .iso in the distribution that can be downloaded 1:1 from other sources?
For the same reason we have Acrobat Reader, Opera, Flash player, SUN JRE / JDK and the other stuff in there. It is easier to install, is installed globally instead of a per user base and one gets automatic
I think this is the only benefit : updates of iso GA comes with virtualbox update
updates. Last but not least it does no harm.
Or in other words: What is the problem with including it in the non-oss repo. I see only advantages.
we want limit non-free software to minimum, the problem of Acrobat Reader, Opera, etc ... is that you can't install it using two clicks as vbox iso GA, downloading and mounting iso GA is provided by virtualbox itself, all you need to do are two clicks
Ciro Iriarte wrote:
I don't see the point, the ISO is provided with VirtualBox, if the distribution provides it, the install procedure would be as annoying as it's today. On the other hand, adding the modules as KMP packages would be nice (given their license allow repackaging).
No, the iso is currently provided only with the binary VirtualBox version (iirc, I might be wrong) or available as separate download which had to be done per user. Also I fail to see how the availability of that .iso would make the installation procedure "annoying" since neither would anyone force you to use it nor would it do more than placing said .iso into /usr/share/virtualbox. Further those KMP
annoying is here for slow internet access : you must still download 40MB, non-free packages are not distributed on DVDs or CDs
packages you want to have are already available since quite a few versions. The problem with them is that they sometimes don't work so one has to compile the additions manually and obviously they work only for openSUSE and therefore not for any other Linux, BSD, Windows, ... so one needs the VBoxGuestAdditions.iso there to build them.
In short: besides the obvious advantages of having something installable via package management are there any disadvantages? I honestly fail to see some.
Regards, Stephan.
from my point : + user gets updates automatically - we want limit non-free software to minimum Question is how strict are rules for non-free packages ? -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org
Michal Seben ha scritto:
from my point : + user gets updates automatically - we want limit non-free software to minimum
Question is how strict are rules for non-free packages ?
The question is: WHY we want limit non-free software to minimum ? since we removed NON-OSS stuffs from DVD i see no reson to keep that to minimum. lots of distros (mandriva, ubuntu, ecc) provides a non-free repo (not enabled by default) that provides everything is useful to end-user like codec, skype, drivers (broadcom, madwifi, ecc) and so on. if we can made end-user's life easier, why shouldn't do it? Andrea -- ------------------------------------------ Andrea Florio QSI International School of Brindisi Sys Admin openSUSE-Education Administrator openSUSE Official Member (anubisg1) Email: andrea@opensuse.org Packman Packaging Team Email: andrea@links2linux.de Web: http://packman.links2linux.org/ Cell: +39-328-7365667 ------------------------------------------
Am Wednesday 12 August 2009 12:46:29 schrieb Andrea Florio:
Michal Seben ha scritto:
from my point : + user gets updates automatically - we want limit non-free software to minimum
Question is how strict are rules for non-free packages ?
The question is: WHY we want limit non-free software to minimum ?
since we removed NON-OSS stuffs from DVD i see no reson to keep that to minimum. lots of distros (mandriva, ubuntu, ecc) provides a non-free repo (not enabled by default) that provides everything is useful to end-user like codec, skype, drivers (broadcom, madwifi, ecc) and so on.
if we can made end-user's life easier, why shouldn't do it?
+1 Daniel
Il mercoledì 12 agosto 2009, Daniel Fuhrmann scrisse:
The question is: WHY we want limit non-free software to minimum ?
since we removed NON-OSS stuffs from DVD i see no reson to keep that to minimum. lots of distros (mandriva, ubuntu, ecc) provides a non-free repo (not enabled by default) that provides everything is useful to end-user like codec, skype, drivers (broadcom, madwifi, ecc) and so on.
if we can made end-user's life easier, why shouldn't do it?
+1
Daniel +1
Bye! -- *** Linux user # 198661 ---_ ICQ 33500725 *** *** Home http://www.kailed.net *** *** Powered by openSUSE *** -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org
On Wed, 2009-08-12 at 12:46 +0200, Andrea Florio wrote:
Michal Seben ha scritto:
from my point : + user gets updates automatically - we want limit non-free software to minimum
Question is how strict are rules for non-free packages ?
The question is: WHY we want limit non-free software to minimum ?
since we removed NON-OSS stuffs from DVD i see no reson to keep that to minimum. lots of distros (mandriva, ubuntu, ecc) provides a non-free repo (not enabled by default) that provides everything is useful to end-user like codec, skype, drivers (broadcom, madwifi, ecc) and so on.
if we can made end-user's life easier, why shouldn't do it?
+100 -- Kevin "Yeaux" Dupuy openSUSE Project Member www.twitter.com/KevinDupuy -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org
Stephan Kleine wrote:
Sorry for top posting but I just subscribed.
Stephan Kulow wrote:
What I wonder: what is the advantage of having an .iso in the distribution that can be downloaded 1:1 from other sources?
For the same reason we have Acrobat Reader, Opera, Flash player, SUN JRE / JDK and the other stuff in there. It is easier to install, is installed globally instead of a per user base and one gets automatic updates. Last but not least it does no harm.
Or in other words: What is the problem with including it in the non-oss repo. I see only advantages.
Ciro Iriarte wrote:
I don't see the point, the ISO is provided with VirtualBox, if the distribution provides it, the install procedure would be as annoying as it's today. On the other hand, adding the modules as KMP packages would be nice (given their license allow repackaging).
No, the iso is currently provided only with the binary VirtualBox version (iirc, I might be wrong) or available as separate download which had to be done per user. Also I fail to see how the availability of that .iso would make the installation procedure "annoying" since neither would anyone force you to use it nor would it do more than placing said .iso into /usr/share/virtualbox. Further those KMP packages you want to have are already available since quite a few versions. The problem with them is that they sometimes don't work so one has to compile the additions manually and obviously they work only for openSUSE and therefore not for any other Linux, BSD, Windows, ... so one needs the VBoxGuestAdditions.iso there to build them.
In short: besides the obvious advantages of having something installable via package management are there any disadvantages? I honestly fail to see some.
Regards, Stephan.
I open feature request : https://features.opensuse.org/307467 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org
participants (6)
-
Andrea Florio -
Daniel Fuhrmann -
Daniele -
Kevin "Yeaux" Dupuy -
Michal Seben -
Stephan Kleine