I have a build now working for xenial now (local sbuild).
Unless we will get a confirmation for extra tests by vmware or someone else
able to cover the current supported esxi we will (as discussed) "only" target
backports but not an SRU (this can change if one confirms he is willing and
able to
Dropping it on/off any list won't help.
As I outlined before - I'm even for updating, but need some confirmation that
it works right.
If they'd commit to verify a ppa that I provide against all their ESXi versions
that would be great!
If you could ask them for that explicitly that would be
I've had an unofficial response that VMware will continue to include
Xenial in the supported OSes list for ESXi if VMware tools is updated.
However I'm waiting for the support person to get an official statement,
which I hope I can quote for you.
They're still talking internally
--
You received
Thank you again for your help.
I'm very disappointed by the overall response to this issue. If you've
already contacted the VMware staffers working on the GitHub repo, then I
wouldn't expect much from the business critical support ticket I've
raised.
We need to know that the distros we use will
I asked around way more, but the TL;DR summary is that it never worked
and that no group is able or willing to do the verification for a full
SRU.
Backports would therefore be the option to go, but due to the (probably trivial
once you know the fix) complex build issue it not feasible for me to
It's take a few days to get through some internal delays about raising
the ticket. It should be acted on soon, although as I said before I'm
unsure if it will get the right result.
Have you tried to contact the VMware people who maintain the open-vm-tools repo
in Github by any chance? I wonder
Thanks again. It will be a few days until I'm able to do it, but I will
raise a job and request assistance from VMware.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1741390
Title:
Package two
FYI - I completed 10.2 into Bionic now, it was in proposed and will soon
be available there.
But the backport to Xenial drove me nuts (for stupid reasons), and since I
can't even qualify it for the SRU I gave up the backport for not.
Yes for a xenial-backports only upload it would not be "that
Sorry to hear that the build is messy.
Thanks for putting the time in that you have. I've got plenty of other
things to do so I'm just checking every few days for the build to
succeed.
Would this be much easier if the new packages were in backports only? In
hindsight that is OK with me.
If so
The build is kind of messy, as upstream moved some sources around and
building that "nicely" required features in debhelper only avaialble in
later Ubuntu versions. It failed a few times now and this week is really
bad in terms of free time for this :-/
Also we discussed a potential SRU into
> If you have something specific you'd like VMware to act on, I can raise
> a support ticket with them but it will take a few days before there's
> any chance of action. I'm not sure I can get much traction, but it's
> worth a try.
thanks for the offer. I have contacts, so this will go on - yet
Thank you again.
If you have something specific you'd like VMware to act on, I can raise
a support ticket with them but it will take a few days before there's
any chance of action. I'm not sure I can get much traction, but it's
worth a try.
--
You received this bug notification because you are
On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 10:35 PM, evade <1741...@bugs.launchpad.net> wrote:
> Hello Christian,
> Thank you for your work on this! Sorry to hear about build problem. I hope
> it's not difficult to resolve. I am looking forward to trying this.
I can't spend like a full day on it, but if you are
Hello Christian,
Thank you for your work on this! Sorry to hear about build problem. I hope
it's not difficult to resolve. I am looking forward to trying this.
I do not feel this is a "comfort feature" but instead a compatibility
requirement for Xenial to be supported on the latest ESXi 6.5
Xenial ok as well in the PPA now.
@evade - having this in the archive is kind of a comfort feature, but
for your case where e.g. the absolute sync of tools and host is so
important - can't you rely on the implicit availability of guest
additions via the host like in [1] ? If not what are the
Artful built, but on Xenial there were various issues for compat 10, I need to
revert more changes.
A new build was uploaded but will again take a while.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
[...]
> Please note that the related open-vm-tools-desktop package also needs to be
> kept at the same version as open-vm-tools. As I mentioned we're using
> VMware's "Horizon View" product so I require this also.
> Do I need to raise a bug against that package also?
The source package
Thank you very much!
I will try the package from your ppa as soon as I'm able.
Please note that the related open-vm-tools-desktop package also needs to be
kept at the same version as open-vm-tools. As I mentioned we're using VMware's
"Horizon View" product so I require this also.
Do I need to
The maintainer scripts have not a lot (actually none) version dependent
special cases that sometimes wreaking havok for such backports.
OTOH unfortunately no integrated dep8 tests.
And as I mentioned at least I don't have a matrix of vmware hosts 10-14 around
or any such which I'd like to see at
Thank Steve, you are right under that POV it would fall under the
(virtual) HW enablement category.
So not backports but a real SRU, that is beneficial for more people if
done right.
Thanks for sharing your SRU expert hat thoughts.
So it comes down to a matter of:
- developing some more extended
Also, I hate to burden you more, but VMware tools seems to be updated
every 3/4 months in line with ESXi patches. IMO it should be updated at
least quarterly.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
Thank you both for your responses!
What needs to happen for a "platform enablement" bugfix?
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1741390
Title:
Package two years out of date
To manage
Hi Christian,
On Fri, Jan 05, 2018 at 07:25:16AM -, ChristianEhrhardt wrote:
> In the sense that you describe it about every package in Xenial is now
> "two years out of date", because the policy to not break on what users
> already use has a lot of implicatons [1]
> One tries to address
Thank you for your explanation - and even before so I was guessing just that.
I've been there as well in the past.
I understand you estimation of: I'm not convinced that older versions of
VMware tools are more "stable"
I've been there as well (for other projects), but hard lessons learned
(on my
Hello Christian,
Thank you for your fast response and the explanation.
Despite the difference in release time, I don't see this as a major upgrade but
instead a required bugfix to maintain compatibility with another vendor's
products.
I work in an enterprise environment and am working on a
Hi evade,
I understand your case but this has to be very carefully evaulated.
In the sense that you describe it about every package in Xenial is now "two
years out of date", because the policy to not break on what users already use
has a lot of implicatons [1]
One tries to address bug-fixes in
I can't find any security bugs fixed, but there are good fixes like
this:
"Kernel modules were not upgraded after upgrading OSPs using the recommended
procedure
The package vmware-tools-esx-kmods is a meta package that depends on the kernel
module package. Installing it with yum/apt/zypper
PS: There are multiple significant bugfixes for Linux in the updated
version.
Here are the release notes, I believe the latest does not include the
fixes from previous versions (all these releases are newer than the
Xenial version)
28 matches
Mail list logo
