Bug#945353: Vagrant libvirt and virtualbox providers missing for buster64 10.1.0
Le 25/11/2019 à 11:40, Jonas Meurer a écrit :
> Hi Emmanuel,
>
> Emmanuel Kasper:
>> Le 23/11/2019 à 14:17, Jonas Meurer a écrit :
>>> Package: cloud.debian.org
>>> Severity: important
>>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> for some reason, boxes for providers 'libvirt' and 'virtualbox' are missing for
>>> buster64 tag 'v10.1.0' from https://app.vagrantup.com/debian/boxes/buster64.
>>>
>>> Unfortunately, this breaks inital setup of debian/buster64 boxes with those
>>> providers, as many packages from the 10.0.0 apt sources list caches don't exist
>>> in the archives any longer.
>>
>> Thanks you for your interest for the Debian Vagrant Boxes.
>> Unfortunately we don't have point releases for Vagrant Boxes for Buster,
>> see here for the rationale:
>> https://lists.debian.org/debian-cloud/2019/09/msg00041.html
>
> Thanks for the pointer. I understand your rationale, but ...
>
>> The package cache for Base Boxes is anyway always updated, since we
>> don't rebuild the boxes after every security upgrade which has been
>> pushed to the archive.
>>
>> Concerning the package cache, what prevents you from refreshing it
>> before installing new packages ?
>
> The problem seems to be, that Vagrant itsels doesn't update the package
> cache before provisioning.
For virtualbox, vagrant per default tries to
> install the VirtualBox Guest Additions.
Does it ? Using the Debian package and for what I remember from Windows
from two years ago, I don't remember pristine Vagrant trying to install
the guest additions by itself ( could have changed though ...)
Are you using the vagrant-vbguest plugin ? If that's the case, you could
then use the Contrib Buster 64 boxes which has the guest additions
already installed.
https://app.vagrantup.com/debian/boxes/contrib-buster64
This fails if the package cache
> wasn't updated in the meantime, as the referenced kernel package doesn't
> exist any longer.
> Also, isn't it that between point releases no packages are removed from
> the achives? Therefore it should be less likely that outdated cache
> causes errors, right?
Less likely to occur, yes, but you still have the base problem
--
You know an upstream is nice when they even accept m68k patches.
- John Paul Adrian Glaubitz, Debian OpenJDK maintainer
Reply to: