Changes between Version 6 and Version 7 of Ticket #15384, comment 17
- Timestamp:
- Jun 24, 2016 3:23:57 PM (8 years ago)
Legend:
- Unmodified
- Added
- Removed
- Modified
-
Ticket #15384, comment 17
v6 v7 4 4 Yes and No. 5 5 6 With Arch (and in Corax's case), the answer is "yes" because with Arch you have no choice. Y'all's ISO has no compile branch that recognizes Arch as a legitimate distribution (although they somehow compile their package from your source code repository).6 With Arch (and in Corax's case), the answer is "yes" because with Arch you have no choice. Y'all's ISO -- in particular the installer -- has no compile branch that recognizes Arch as a legitimate distribution. If we examine the PKGBUILD file at https://git.archlinux.org/svntogit/community.git/tree/trunk/PKGBUILD?h=packages/virtualbox, line 52 makes it clear that they build their package from the tar.bz file grabbed from your server at http://download.virtualbox.org/virtualbox/5.0.22/VirtualBox-5.0.22.tar.bz2 and then patch the installer to get it recognized. 7 7 8 However, in my case and with Ubuntu, the answer is No. I used y'all's ISO to confirm the effect, and I did confirm it in two desktop environments.8 However, in my case and with Ubuntu, the answer is "No". I used y'all's ISO to confirm the effect, and I did confirm it in two desktop environments. 9 9 10 10 The problem is almost definitely a guest-utils code change that occurred between the 5.0.16 and 5.0.18 guest-utils ISO, which affects OSX hosts, and which has been carried forward ever since to both subsequent guest-utils versions and the packages that are generated from this source code.

