[10:52] <Whoopie> Hi, LocutusOfBorg asked me to address a current issue here: the kernel now has the modules for a Virtualbox guest included by default. What is missing, is the udev rule which is part of the virtualbox-guest-dkms package. I recommended to put it into the virtualbox-guest-x11 or virtualbox-guest-utils package. What's your opinion on that?
[10:54] <TJ-> Whoopie: it doesn't sound like something for the -x11 package, that's GUI/X-server specific isn't it?
[10:54] <Whoopie> yes
[10:54] <Whoopie> there're the libraries for 3D acceleration and some config files.
[10:55] <Whoopie> TJ-: in the virtualbox-guest-utils package, there's also /sbin/mount.vboxsf, which doesn't work properly without the udev rules.
[10:56] <TJ-> Whoopie: that seems to seal the decision then :)
[10:56] <Whoopie> or put the udev rule into the kernel package?
[10:57] <TJ-> I don't think so - the linux-image-* packages don't carry any udev rules currently
[10:58] <LocutusOfBorg> problem is the dependency chain
[10:58] <LocutusOfBorg> dpkg depends on utils, not the opposite
[10:59] <TJ->  is it for /lib/udev/rules.d/60-virtualbox.rules ?
[10:59] <Whoopie> TJ-: /lib/udev/rules.d/60-virtualbox-guest-dkms.rules
[10:59] <Whoopie> LocutusOfBorg: but -x11 depends on -utils, so it's always installed.
[11:01] <TJ-> dpkg depends on it?
[11:02] <LocutusOfBorg> people might have the utils without x11 and without dkms
[11:03] <TJ-> oh, DKMS not dpkg you meant?
[11:03] <LocutusOfBorg> yep
[11:03] <LocutusOfBorg> virtualbox-guest-dkms
[11:04] <Whoopie> LocutusOfBorg: then it doesn't hurt at all.
[11:06] <TJ-> hang on, if the kernel module is now in the linux-image then is there any need for virtualboc-guest-dkms at all? ?
[11:08] <LocutusOfBorg> TJ-, probably none, except for udev
[11:10] <TJ-> I don't see anything in the virtualbox-guest-dkms other than the udev rule that needs relocating, so that package could become virtual/meta(?) if the udev rule moved to virtualbox-guest-utils. 
[11:11] <LocutusOfBorg> well, I don't usually trust the module on the kernel, I mean, kernel updates might break stuff, I prefer to have the possibility to choose my version in case of issues
[11:11] <LocutusOfBorg> the kernel modules are not mainline, they are updated from time to time
[11:12] <TJ-> My observations - probably needs someone more aware of the intricacies of package reorg than me, but I don't think the udev rule belongs in the linuximage package - certainly no others are currently
[11:12] <TJ-> LocutusOfBorg: ahh, i see, so just move the udev rule to virtualbox-guest-utils and keep guest-dkms as is otherwise
[11:15] <TJ-> if v-g-d gets installed on it's own with no other VB guest packages that's just the same as having linux-image-* installed; the udev rule is only required when of the v-g-{utils,x11} packages is installed, and -x1ll depends on -utils, so that sounds correct
[11:15] <TJ-> s/when of/when one of/
[11:16] <LocutusOfBorg> so x11 depends on utils, utils depends on dkms/source/virtual meta package
[11:16] <LocutusOfBorg> and the dkmd itself doesn't depend on anything else
[11:16] <LocutusOfBorg> *dkms
[11:16] <LocutusOfBorg> because also guest-source might provide kernel modules
[11:17] <LocutusOfBorg> "virtualbox-guest-modules" is provided by virtualbox-guest-dkms, virtualbox-guest-source -> (the deb created after the build), and the one provided by src:linux
[11:17] <TJ-> how will it work if the -dkms is installed - the kernel will have 2 identical modules, does modprobe know to prefer the /lib/modules/*/updates/dkms/ path to /lib/modules/*/kernel/ ?
[11:17] <LocutusOfBorg> yes the kernel will prefer the updates
[11:18] <LocutusOfBorg> I also patched dkms to not error out in case there is already one installed
[11:18] <LocutusOfBorg> https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/dkms/2.3-3ubuntu5
[11:19] <TJ-> how does depmod handle that? there'll be 2 modules with identical symbols/aliases won't there?
[11:20] <LocutusOfBorg> the updates version is preferred, depmod knows that newer kernel modules might appear
[11:20] <LocutusOfBorg> we hacked some versioning inside the module, to make them differ in version
[11:20] <LocutusOfBorg> that dkms upload was to fix exactly that versioning check
[11:25] <TJ-> yeah, just been playing about with it to check
[11:26] <LocutusOfBorg> http://debomatic-amd64.debian.net/distribution#unstable/virtualbox/5.2.8-dfsg-7/buildlog
[11:26] <LocutusOfBorg> let me see
[12:40] <LocutusOfBorg> Whoopie, TJ- uploaded in unstable, will sync in Ubuntu if nobody complains
[12:40] <LocutusOfBorg> thanks for your help!
[12:40] <LocutusOfBorg> https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/pkg-virtualbox/virtualbox.git/commit/?id=a58ce37a83a281baa85db238d28e6bc82b49114c
[12:40] <LocutusOfBorg> this is the diff
[13:02] <LocutusOfBorg> fortunately the udev rules has packagename in filename, so the mangling avoids me to add breaks+replaces
[13:05] <LocutusOfBorg> apw, ^^ so now we should have fixed that issue in the kernel
[13:05] <LocutusOfBorg> thanks to Whoopie and TJ- :)
[13:05] <apw> LocutusOfBorg, sounds good, i think
[14:16] <Whoopie> LocutusOfBorg: thank you!!!
[14:18] <Whoopie> LocutusOfBorg: "Make the guest-utils depends on dkms not vice-versa" -> so -utils always installs -dkms?
[14:23] <LocutusOfBorg> nope, utils depends on -dkms | -source | virtual version provided by dkms or source or kernel
[14:23] <LocutusOfBorg> virtualbox-guest-dkms (= ${source:Version}) | virtualbox-guest-source (= ${source:Version}) | virtualbox-guest-modules,
[14:23] <LocutusOfBorg> thi is the dependency
[14:24] <LocutusOfBorg> actually I could even remove and just depend on "virtualbox-guest-modules", because it is already provided by dkms
[14:24] <LocutusOfBorg> the problem is that installing guest-source is not sufficient to have a kernel module
[14:24] <LocutusOfBorg> you have to install guest-source, use module-assistant to build a custom .deb kernel module file, and then dpkg -i it (and this custom deb has the "Provide: virtualbox-guest-modules" )
[14:25] <LocutusOfBorg> so, depending on guest-source is theoretically wrong
[14:25] <Whoopie> ok, thanks for the explanation.
[14:25] <LocutusOfBorg> but I couldn't find a better 
[15:18] <s10gopal> jsalisbury, tworevert is bad
[22:49] <phil42> if bionic will be on kernel 4.15,  why wasn't a longterm kernel chosen?
[23:13] <TJ-> phil42: because the mainline release cadence doesn't match Ubuntu releases.
[23:17]  * trippeh_ mumbles something about people wanting support for the latest radeons and stuff
[23:45] <phil42> it just seems to me like letting the kroah-hartman et al backport the fixes would be better
[23:52] <TJ-> The kernel team already does that and a lot more