Page 1 of 1

vboxadd: line 469: udevcontrol: command not found

Posted: 14. Jul 2019, 06:24
by nixuser
Building guest additions test build 6.0.9 build 131849 on Fedora 30 produces the error:

Code: Select all

/opt/VBoxGuestAdditions-6.0.9/init/vboxadd: line 469: udevcontrol: command not found
The build seems to work OK despite the error, but AFAIK udevcontrol is not available in any of the default Fedora repos.

Re: vboxadd: line 469: udevcontrol: command not found

Posted: 14. Jul 2019, 09:49
by socratis
It seems that this is the last change in the VBoxGuestAdditions installation routine (trunk/src/VBox/Additions/linux/installer/vboxadd.sh), between revisions 79438 and 79510 that happened 11 days ago, on 2018-07-03 with changeset 79510, and it seems that it's in response to a bug (bugref:9138), but that's their internal bug tracker, not the public one...

I believe that the message is not an actual error, more of like a red herring. I saw it too lately with (I believe) a Kali guest. No problems there as well, but it certainly doesn't feel ... right. ;)

Re: vboxadd: line 469: udevcontrol: command not found

Posted: 14. Jul 2019, 10:22
by andyp73
From vboxadd.sh:

Code: Select all

468	    udevadm control --reload 2>&1 || true
469	    udevcontrol reload_rules 2>&1 || true
Those look like two different commands to do the same thing. Which one executes then presumably depends on which distribution you are running. It looks like lazy programming to me as they should be wrapped in an if... fi to only be run if the executable actually exists.

-Andy.

Re: vboxadd: line 469: udevcontrol: command not found

Posted: 14. Jul 2019, 18:15
by socratis
andyp73 wrote:It looks like lazy programming to me as they should be wrapped in an if... fi to only be run if the executable actually exists
Either that (preferably), or redirect the output to /dev/null. Come Monday I'll let the developers know on IRC and point them to the thread.

Re: vboxadd: line 469: udevcontrol: command not found

Posted: 16. Jul 2019, 13:46
by socratis
Apparently the issue has been addressed, it's simply that the trunk has not been updated. It's only a cosmetic issue in any case...