[OpenIndiana-discuss] VirtualBox v5.1.0 on hipster lastest

Fri Sep 9 16:06:32 UTC 2016

Jim, Apostolos, Ben, alp, friends,

just spent the day in the sun with only 30 minutes hour of sleep but couldn't say "no".
Thanks for your licensing correction, aha.
How much I'm also tired of Oracle's special extra license games, but good to know that gpl is gpl (makes sense to me, too).

After (or in the middle of) some sleep this night and an appointment tomorrow I will definitely search the old opensxce-userland gate on the backup pool.
Then *WE* can create it together.
Several persons have more eyes than 1 person.
And for 1 person it is too much to always sync it with the latest bits from Oracle vbox OSE.
So great, let's build vbox and qt5 ourselves from now on, as a team :)

Till tomorrow evening with the old gate which I never completed because the packaging coversions back to SVR4 showed me at some point that it was nonsene not to use IPS right away (that's why I never finished and released it)

Poka, %martin

>Пятница,  9 сентября 2016, 12:45 UTC от Jim Klimov <jimklimov at cos.ru>:
>
>9 сентября 2016 г. 11:59:59 CEST, "Мартин Бохниг via openindiana-discuss" < openindiana-discuss at openindiana.org > пишет:
>>Hello,
>>
>>as for building vbox in hipster gate, that wouldn't be difficult and if
>>you want I could add that from my old opensxce-userland gate.
>>I built it in userland in 2014 when I still planned to bring out
>>OpenSXCE2014.11
>>And together with Juergen Keil I was the initiator of the 
>> Qemu at opensolaris.org project and one of the first who ever (at the time
>>only partially) built vbox on Solaris hosts even before Sun aqquired
>>Innotech/VirtualBox for 20 Million $ (when Solaris still wasn't
>>supported as host and when most build tools for vbox still weren't
>>available for Solaris).
>>
>>The somewhat scary question in that case however is Oracle's
>>dual-licensing policy: On one hand they say it is gpl, unless exactly
>>then when they decide it does not fall under gpl for a given
>>distributor.
>>
>>The 2nd question is, which benefit do you promise yourself from it.
>>
>>And point #3: I can prove you in many ways that OpenSolaris is still
>>most compatible to SunOS5.11 aka Solaris 11.0 (rather than to anything
>>else).
>>So perhaps rather don't start to repeat this well-known trumpet's
>>tones.
>>Mind the implications this would have: It would break compatibility
>>with most configuration frameworks, only because a few persons think
>>they created Solaris 13 by adding NIC and SATA drivers plus
>>delete-engineering large chunks.
>>
>>If you don't believe that it is mostly Sollaris 11.0, how would drivers
>>still be swappable (technically [not legally] speaking) with 11.0?
>>
>>
>>--
>>Martin Bochnig
>>
>>
>>
>>>Пятница,  9 сентября 2016, 8:06 UTC от Adam Števko
>>< adam.stevko at gmail.com >:
>>>
>>>Hi,
>>>
>>>perhaps it is time to start compiling virtualbox ourselves to avoid
>>any such problems? I also wonder what problems would we see thanks to
>>illumos identifying itself as Solaris 11. Any volunteer on this?
>>>
>>>It would be good to sync up with tomww of SFE on this. (I talked to
>>him some time ago that when he had nothing left to package, he could
>>have a look on vbox as it will be much easier for everyone).
>>>
>>>Cheers,
>>>Adam
>>>
>>>> On 08 Sep 2016, at 15:32, Peter Tribble <  peter.tribble at gmail.com >
>>wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 1:35 PM, Predrag Zečević - Unix Systems
>>>> Administrator <  predrag.zecevic at 2e-systems.com > wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> QT5 is required for VirtualBox 5.1 (
>> https://www.illumos.org/issues/7145 )
>>>> 
>>>> Not so. VirtualBox 5.1 includes QT5; the problem is that it doesn't
>>work
>>>> right.
>>>> 
>>>> I'm wondering if this is another case of 5709/7165. It looks like
>>the
>>>> VirtualBox
>>>> binaries were built on S10U10, as they're looking for asprintf.
>>>> 
>>>>  https://www.illumos.org/issues/5709
>>>> 
>>>> -- 
>>>> -Peter Tribble
>>>>  http://www.petertribble.co.uk/ -  http://ptribble.blogspot.com/
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> openindiana-discuss mailing list
>>>>  openindiana-discuss at openindiana.org
>>>>  https://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>openindiana-discuss mailing list
>>> openindiana-discuss at openindiana.org
>>> https://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>openindiana-discuss mailing list
>> openindiana-discuss at openindiana.org
>> https://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss
>
>Hello Martin et al,
>
>Regarding the licensing, just to reduce the FUD level: GPL is just that and not revokable. If we follow the rules and comply to conditions of the license (redistribute source for redistributed binaries, in particular), the GPL applies. If one wants something else (e.g. add proprietary code in the core and rebrand) then they can negotiate for special terms with IP owner (Innotech->Sun->Oracle).
>
>Separate from that is the PUEL license that now applies only to the separate extensions download and use rights.
>
>As for benefits - primarily we can improve compatibility with our distro out of the box. Potentially we can also improve on some fronts that Oracle won't do for any reason (say, add VNC consoles instead of/in addition to vRDP), or enable codepaths that work on illumos but not on Solaris, or solve bugs (VBoxOGL.so brutely overriding Mesa libGL.so), or perhaps someone would develop something new first on OI Hipster.
>
>While there are many similarities between siblings like OI or OmniOS and Solaris 11, there are also significant differences, drivers notwithstanding - several of which do pop out with VirtualBox in particular. And over time there will likely be more.
>
>I too wanted to (build and) package VirtualBox for OI/Hipster for some time now, but would love if someone smarter beats me to it ;)
>
>Jim
>--
>Typos courtesy of K-9 Mail on my Samsung Android