emulators/virtualbox-oracle-vm-virtualbox-extension-pack

[pixilla (Bradley Giesbrecht)]

Regarding the ​VirtualBox 4.1.2 Oracle VM VirtualBox Extension Pack.

• The extension pack does not work with MacPorts virtualbox due to incorrect dylib paths. (easily fixed with install_name_tool)
• The extension pack also installs into the VirtualBox.app directory (provided by the MP virtualbox port). It is probably a good idea for MP to install this extension with a Port.
  

I would like input on two points:

1. The license is listed as (PUEL). Would MP have an issue with this license? ​VirtualBox_PUEL
2. The port name "virtualbox-oracle-vm-virtualbox-extension-pack" is rather long. I originally used "virtualbox-extpack" for the name then wondered if some day there were many extensions would this still be a good name. Any opinions regarding the name?

[ryandesign (Ryan Carsten Schmidt)]

Replying to pixilla@…:

1. The license is listed as (PUEL). Would MP have an issue with this license? ​VirtualBox_PUEL

Item 7 of their ​licensing FAQ says "The Personal Use and Evaluation License [...] does not give you the right to redistribute these binaries" so we'd have to notify Bill to add an exception to the mirroring rules for this port (as we already do for the molden port). And we wouldn't be able to distribute archives, but setting "license PUEL", since PUEL isn't in our list of approved licenses, should take care of that already. Since "Personal Use and Evaluation License" is a bit generic, I might use "VirtualBoxPUEL" as the license name.

2. The port name "virtualbox-oracle-vm-virtualbox-extension-pack" is rather long. I originally used "virtualbox-extpack" for the name then wondered if some day there were many extensions would this still be a good name. Any opinions regarding the name?

This is a long name, and slightly redundant. It doesn't particularly matter to me. But we could use a shorter name like "virtualbox-extension-pack" for now, and if later this becomes ambiguous, we can always change it (replaced_by ...).

Since the version of this extension pack should probably stay in sync with the virtualbox port, maybe it would make sense to make it a subport of the virtualbox port. See #32615 in which I showed how I would do this for virtualbox-guest-additions.

[pixilla (Bradley Giesbrecht)]

Yes, lets subport this, or roll it into virtualbox.

[ryandesign (Ryan Carsten Schmidt)]

The license issue is probably reason enough not to integrate any of these into the main virtualbox installation, and to have them be subports (or separate ports, if we feel that's better). I hadn't considered the license issue when I suggested in #32615 we might want to just put it into the port's main installation.

[anddam (Andrea D'Amore)]

Cc Me!

[pixilla (Bradley Giesbrecht)]

See r92156