<br><br>On Tuesday, 20 September 2016, Laurentiu Pancescu <<a>lpancescu@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">On 17/09/16 21:52, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Can you use the much more recent gcc in the dev-toolset-4<br>
repositories, which is in turn enabled by the the centos-release-scl<br>
and centos-release-scl-rh packages? It would mean using a customized<br>
koji or mock setup and activating a BuildRequires<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
No, we have to use the same compiler used for building the kernel. [1] The only way is to get the patch from the gcc 4.9 branch backported (it seems small in the diff, but I don't know how much different were the code bases of 4.8 and 4.9 by that time). Even then, having kernels older than 3.11 is likely to remain a problem, if we insist on choosing this route to the Guest Additions.<br>
<br>
I spent almost the entire last week investigating this, reading VirtualBox code and trying different things - probably a few days more in total, since I started. I started reading Packer's intro Thursday evening, and the missing bits about its "virtualbox-iso" builder and the "vagrant" postprocessor the next morning. [2] By the end of the day, I already had an automated, repeatable way of building Vagrant images for CentOS 6 and 7, based on our official kickstarts and our Netinstall ISOs, with the VirtualBox Guest Additions preinstalled and fully working. I'm much more inclined to go this way. I'm not sure if it would be possible to use CBS, but I could use Jenkins to generate the images, by allocating a node to run VirtualBox and Packer natively. Would this be acceptable from others' perspective?<br>
<br>
Would the SCL SIG be willing to also provide Packer, besides Vagrant? Right now, I'm downloading the Packer binary directly from upstream; for production purposes, I'd feel more comfortable with getting it from SCL.<br>
<br>
Best regards,<br>
Laurențiu<br>
<br>
[1] <a href="https://www.virtualbox.org/manual/ch12.html#ts_linux-kernelmodule-fails-to-load" target="_blank">https://www.virtualbox.org/man<wbr>ual/ch12.html#ts_linux-kernelm<wbr>odule-fails-to-load</a><br>
[2] <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_holes" target="_blank">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/<wbr>Law_of_holes</a><br>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
CentOS-devel mailing list<br>
<a>CentOS-devel@centos.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel" target="_blank">https://lists.centos.org/mailm<wbr>an/listinfo/centos-devel</a><br>
</blockquote><div><br></div><div>For what it's worth, we had been using Packer to build CentOS Vagrant boxes from the templates provided at <a href="https://github.com/chef/bento" target="_blank">https://github.com/chef/bento</a> until recently, as there wasn't an 'official' CentOS box for the VMware provider. Since I am currently working on using Packer's vmware-vmx builder to repackage your new VMware box to include the VMware Tools (the VMware equivalent to the Virtualbox guest additions), I would be interested to know if you would pursue a similar approach (using Packer) for VMware?</div><div><br></div>I realise this is a bit off-topic for your current issue with Virtualbox, but it would be great to have the official CentOS Vagrant boxes well supported under both Virtualbox and VMware.<span></span><div><br></div><div>Let me know what I can do to assist in this.<span></span></div>