[Pkg-virtualbox-devel] Bug#454348: Problem remains whether chosen to be ignored or not

[Dennis Eckhaus]

Sigh.

Module Assistant takes the older package and builds, downgrading so that 
package management will upgrade to a useless Virtualbox if not put on 
hold.  So that's not a good reason to put the package on hold?  I can't 
agree.  No newer deb package is made in the folder when upgraded so it 
is understandable that Module Assistant uses the only package there, the 
older one.

Kernel-package only has its configuration files left over on my system.  
Aptitude must have removed it, diagnosing somehow that it wasn't being 
used.  So I suppose I'd just need to reinstall that to use the second 
install method suggested in the readme.debian.

Third method works, but doesn't tell the user what folder to cd into and 
that just extracting with tar xvif as a first step, cd to the folder the 
second, and running make and make install from there and adding vboxdrv 
to /etc/modules will actually get this thing going.  A visit to the wiki 
page on the internet is required for that.

So that's the result of RTFM.

If there's no problem, why is the deb file in the folder the older 
package after upgrading to the new package?  And although it is frowned 
upon to discuss, the old NVidia deb file sits in there too even though 
the Debian NVidia packages are no longer installed.

This entire bug report appears to be a discussion of whether the fact 
that these things aren't working properly is a problem or not.  I say 
that the knowledge that these things will be fixed at a future date is 
not a reason to say there is no problem.

This is not even my bug report.  I am simply attempting to clarify to 
everyone dismissing the original poster's report that it deserves 
support as a legitimate bug until the standard suggested installation 
methods do work as designed again.  In response I am hearing a 
defensive, almost haughty attitude suggesting that it is normal for 
things to be broken and that RTFM will solve the problem only I must be 
having since everything is working perfectly.

Everything is not working perfectly, or the original poster wouldn't 
have pointed this problem out here, and everyone who attempts the 
standard installation method for using this package will experience this 
loop where the older package is used and then upgraded (unless put on 
hold) so the whole procedure must be applied again.  Only manual 
installation works, and the exact procedure must be hunted down to be 
informed enough to get done properly.