Bug 499897
| Summary: | [VirtualBox-OSE] Virtual machine aborts after initialization | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Justin Newman <eqisow> |
| Component: | mencal | Assignee: | Lubomir Rintel <lkundrak> |
| Status: | CLOSED INSUFFICIENT_DATA | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | low | ||
| Version: | 11 | CC: | dwmw2, eqisow, lkundrak, mmahut, vedran |
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2009-08-04 17:03:38 UTC | Type: | --- |
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
| Embargoed: | |||
|
Description
Justin Newman
2009-05-08 18:56:17 UTC
This bug appears to have been reported against 'rawhide' during the Fedora 11 development cycle. Changing version to '11'. More information and reason for this action is here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping Justin: Are you still able to reproduce this? You may want to report it to RPM Fusion bugzilla [1], since Fedora does not ship VirtualBox-OSE. [1] http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/ Wow, did not even notice that. What's wrong with the VBox-OSE license? GPLv2? Anyway, I've long since moved to the non-free version, which has been working fine. (In reply to comment #3) > Wow, did not even notice that. What's wrong with the VBox-OSE license? GPLv2? License's not a problem. VirtualBox-OSE requires external kernel module and kernel modules which outside of the main kernel package are not allowed. ... sigh. I love Fedora, really I do, but the package base is anaemic and things like that are part of the reason why. ^^ Anyway, sorry about the misfiled bug. Closing. (In reply to comment #5) > ... sigh. I love Fedora, really I do, but the package base is anaemic and > things like that are part of the reason why. ^^ Hm, 8829 [1] packages. That feels far from "anaemic" to me. [1] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/packages/bugs/index/ 8829 doesn't really compare well with 25113 [1], does it? I run into something that's missing pretty much every time I turn around. Anyway, didn't mean to start anything... [1] http://www.debian.org/intro/why_debian Well, not starting anything.... anyways, that's rather unfair -- the number 25113 seems pretty much made up :) Actually -- it's 28251 packages. Binary packages: $ wget -qO - 'http://packages.debian.org/stable/allpackages?format=txt.gz' |gunzip |wc -l 28251 Well, short skim through the list reveals that most of it are subpackages; pretty much duplicates. Let's eliminate those (and well, maybe ~100 innocent packages): $ wget -qO - 'http://packages.debian.org/stable/allpackages?format=txt.gz' |gunzip |sed 's/[ -].*//' |sort |uniq |wc -l 11453 Quite different number, huh? And some of them are just compat packages of obsolete software: $ wget -qO - 'http://packages.debian.org/stable/allpackages?format=txt.gz' |gunzip |sed 's/[ -].*//;s/[0-9\.]*$//' |sort |uniq |wc -l 10129 I am aware that the regexps are not prefect, but enough for a rough comparison. You get the point. Moreover, they ship stuff that's included in RPM Fusion, and we grow much faster. |