On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 4:34 PM, Matthias Clasen <mclasen(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On Wed, 2014-09-03 at 09:21 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
>
> Briefly, 1) we aren't staffed for it, 2) it encourages crappy behavior
> on the part of the module authors by providing disincentive to getting
> it upstream, 3) it's a maintenance hassle, 4) we typically already
> have alternatives (this is particularly true in the case of virt), 5)
> it's yet another entry in an already rapidly expanding test matrix
> that has to be checked off (which goes back to item 1), etc etc.
>
> I consider myself to be fairly open to many things. Carrying
> virtualbox modules out-of-tree when the authors refuse to even submit
> them upstream for review and have no intention of ever doing so is not
> one of those things. This is one of the few items where I simply say
> no.
Do I sense a possible conflict of interest here ?
I think Alberto's argument that including such drivers will make it a
lot easier to try the workstation on popular virtualization solutions
carries some weight and deserves to be discussed, instead of rejected
out-of-hand.
--
desktop mailing list
desktop(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop
Well, I have used VirtualBox guest additions before, they break every
time VirtualBox is updated (and you need to update and rebuild them)
and they are extremely unstable.
I honestly think they provide *worse* experience for users. And I
remember someone in an other thread here said their 3d acceleration is
not stable enough to use with gnome-shell.
--
-Elad Alfassa.