<p dir="ltr"><br>
On Sep 3, 2014 9:44 AM, "Elad Alfassa" <<a href="mailto:elad@fedoraproject.org">elad@fedoraproject.org</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 4:34 PM, Matthias Clasen <<a href="mailto:mclasen@redhat.com">mclasen@redhat.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> > On Wed, 2014-09-03 at 09:21 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:<br>
> ><br>
> >><br>
> >> Briefly, 1) we aren't staffed for it, 2) it encourages crappy behavior<br>
> >> on the part of the module authors by providing disincentive to getting<br>
> >> it upstream, 3) it's a maintenance hassle, 4) we typically already<br>
> >> have alternatives (this is particularly true in the case of virt), 5)<br>
> >> it's yet another entry in an already rapidly expanding test matrix<br>
> >> that has to be checked off (which goes back to item 1), etc etc.<br>
> >><br>
> >> I consider myself to be fairly open to many things. Carrying<br>
> >> virtualbox modules out-of-tree when the authors refuse to even submit<br>
> >> them upstream for review and have no intention of ever doing so is not<br>
> >> one of those things. This is one of the few items where I simply say<br>
> >> no.<br>
> ><br>
> > Do I sense a possible conflict of interest here ?<br>
> ><br>
> > I think Alberto's argument that including such drivers will make it a<br>
> > lot easier to try the workstation on popular virtualization solutions<br>
> > carries some weight and deserves to be discussed, instead of rejected<br>
> > out-of-hand.<br>
> ><br>
> > --<br>
> > desktop mailing list<br>
> > <a href="mailto:desktop@lists.fedoraproject.org">desktop@lists.fedoraproject.org</a><br>
> > <a href="https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop">https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop</a><br>
><br>
> Well, I have used VirtualBox guest additions before, they break every<br>
> time VirtualBox is updated (and you need to update and rebuild them)<br>
><br>
For guests we control the versions via installs (not counting the recomposes that were talked about to keep new installs up to date). All we'd need to do is support ONE version of vb, and provide a dl link to THAT version.<br>
As for these anecdotes about vb not working, the fact is ANY users we acquire via this method are new users we may not have gotten otherwise. The question is whether or not the work to support that single version of vb is so great as to outweigh the potential of new users.</p>