[arch-general] Missing Dependency virtualbox-host-dkms

Jack O'Connor oconnor663 at gmail.com
Tue Mar 8 00:24:38 UTC 2016

On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 6:52 PM, Sebastiaan Lokhorst
<sebastiaanlokhorst at gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes, I think that would be the best solution. Each '*-headers' package
> could provide 'kernel-headers' (or something like that).
> Provides does not imply conflict, so that wouldn't be a problem.
> Note that a user could still install a certain 'x-headers' which does not
> match their 'y' kernel, since the headers do not depend on the kernel or
> vice versa. (in the libgl case this is not a problem, since the libgl
> packages depend on the matching driver)
> But I think most users who use the regular kernel and are not familiar with
> other kernels would install the plain 'linux-headers' package when
> prompted, and not the 'linux-lts-headers' package or something else.

Now that you mention it, would it be possible to have virtualbox
depend on a "virtualbox-host" fake package that both
virtualbox-host-modules and virtualbox-host-dkms Provide? That way end
users wouldn't need to install any headers or make dependencies, and
their updates would be faster, while folks on other kernels would
still be able to satisfy the dependency their own way. Or is there
another reason virtualbox-host-modules was dropped as a dependency?

Unfortunately, "virtualbox-host" wouldn't automatically fix anyone
who's gotten into the broken state, since they'll now have
virtualbox-host-dkms installed, but it won't be building any vbox*
modules for them. Maybe it would be a good idea to create *both*
virtual packages? If that's more work than it's worth, an Arch News
post might do the trick too. But people using virtualbox-host-dkms
really do require at least one kernel package, and it could be helpful
to have pacman enforce that.

More information about the arch-general mailing list