Hi debian-cloud,Thanks for maintaining the https://atlas.hashicorp.com/debian/boxes/jessie64 Vagrant box.TL;DR: Is there any interest in having this project publish an image that does support the vboxsf filesystem? I would be hugely in favor of that. I can possibly contribute work toward generating a second image called (e.g.) https://atlas.hashicorp.com/debian/boxes/jessie64-contrib-vboxsf if that's helpful to separate it from the official one, since I appreciate the goal of shipping an image that contains 100% packages from "Debian main".Details:I work on https://sandstorm.io/ , an open source project (and company), which for debian-cloud's purposes is a web app package manager that runs on Debian (and other GNU/Linux distributions).I also maintain vagrant-spk (documented here -- https://docs.sandstorm.io/en/latest/vagrant-spk/packaging-tutorial/ ) which helps people turn web apps into a package file that can be distributed. vagrant-spk is basically a Vagrantfile template plus some shell scripts, plus a default VirtualBox file sharing configuration.We like using Vagrant because it allows Windows & Mac OS-based people to use our vagrant-spk (Python script) to make Sandstorm packages.As possibly-relevant context, I'm also a Debian developer, so I have an account on alioth etc.We rely on vboxsf for file sharing because it provides a much smoother experience -- people can edit the files on their host operating system. Honestly, this one feature is the thing I like the most about Vagrant.I'd like to keep using a Debian base image as the base image for the Vagrantfile that Sandstorm's vagrant-spk tool generates. But I appreciate that it's nice to have a 100% main image. Maybe a useful compromise would be to publish another image that *does* contain vboxsf?-- Asheesh.P.S. As a side note, removing vboxsf seems like a large change to ship in a minor release. But I am OK with that and can try to read the changelog at https://atlas.hashicorp.com/debian/boxes/jessie64 in a timely fashion.