Page 1 of 1
vboxmanage vs VBoxManage
Posted: 13. Oct 2010, 18:54
by UncleBoarder
I know it's really VBoxManage but I use to have a SymLink for vboxmanage... suddenly it's gone. Maybe I damaged it when I had to kill the VM that I mistakenly set for too much memory and I couldn't regain control of it.... but regardless, vboxmanage now says it's not installed.
'VBoxManage' does work but even if I try to build another SymLink to vboxmanage it says it's not installed. Any ideas? Can I reinstall VBox over top of the existing installation to repair this?
Re: vboxmanage vs VBoxManage
Posted: 14. Oct 2010, 00:11
by Sasquatch
Then verify if the symlink is going to the right location and is in the right location.
Since you use it as command, why not make it an alias in your .bashrc instead? Much cleaner IMO.
Re: vboxmanage vs VBoxManage
Posted: 14. Oct 2010, 03:30
by UncleBoarder
I didn't make this clear. I didn't make the original SymLink, I just tried to fix it. Simply installing VirtualBox apparently made it. But your point is valid. This seems so simple yet it doesn't work. What am I missing?
ed@ubuntu:/usr/bin$ ls -ld V*
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 2378 2010-08-05 08:14 VBox
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 4 2010-10-09 01:48 VBoxHeadless -> VBox
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 4 2010-10-09 01:48 VBoxManage -> VBox
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 4 2010-10-09 01:48 VBoxSDL -> VBox
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 10440 2010-08-05 08:14 VBoxTunctl
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 4 2010-10-09 01:48 VBoxVRDP -> VBox
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 4 2010-10-09 01:48 VirtualBox -> VBox
ed@ubuntu:/usr/bin$
ed@ubuntu:/usr/bin$
ed@ubuntu:/usr/bin$ ln -s VBox vboxmanage
ln: creating symbolic link `vboxmanage': Permission denied
ed@ubuntu:/usr/bin$ sudo -s VBox vboxmanage
[sudo] password for ed:
Unknown application - VBox
ed@ubuntu:/usr/bin$ sudo -s /usr/bin/VBox vboxmanage
Unknown application - VBox
ed@ubuntu:/usr/bin$
As you can see above, both VBoxManage and vboxmanage are linked to VBox, yet typing VBoxManage works as expected... BUT typing vboxmanage or VBox does not...
ed@ubuntu:/usr/bin$ VBox
Unknown application - VBox
ed@ubuntu:/usr/bin$
Re: vboxmanage vs VBoxManage
Posted: 14. Oct 2010, 04:08
by UncleBoarder
On further investigation it appears that the VBox command looks for specific matches... "VBoxManage" being one of them. So linking to VBox and assuming "vboxmanage" will work is wrong. It CAN'T work because it's not in the code.
So... Someone out there must realize that what I'm saying is correct, this DID work WITHOUT me creating the link myself. HOW!?! Obviously I can't fix it by simply building a link. Only tonight did I realize what the actual problem is, it's code. BUT THIS WORKED BEFORE. Just a few days ago.
I know the question... what changed? I wish I knew. The only thing I can think of is the runaway VM session which I had to kill. Other than that, it's been operating normally. I've typed vboxmanage dozen's of times all lower case. It doesn't make sense.
Re: vboxmanage vs VBoxManage
Posted: 14. Oct 2010, 04:13
by UncleBoarder
Maybe this has been broken since the weekend... I changed from OSE to 3.2.8. Is it possible OSE supports "vboxmanage" and 3.2.8 doesn't??
Re: vboxmanage vs VBoxManage
Posted: 14. Oct 2010, 04:25
by UncleBoarder
And...
Finally full circle back to Sasquatch's comment... make certain it's pointed to the correct thing.
ln -s /usr/lib/virtualbox/VBoxManage /usr/bin/vboxmanage
Done.
There are two VBoxManage links, one in usr/bin and one in /usr/lib/virtualbox
Re: vboxmanage vs VBoxManage
Posted: 16. Oct 2010, 14:46
by Sasquatch
If you just typed in 'vboxmanage', you would get the error that the application is not installed, but is available in the package 'Virtualbox-ose'. If you moved from the OSE to the PUEL version, then naturally you get this behaviour. Linux is case sensitive and the distribution repo/package maintainer, or the OSE in general, made the vboxmanage command all lower case, to make sure that both versions don't get in each other's way. So live with the uppercase V and B. Or go back to the OSE again.
And your command for linking the file is all wrong, since when does 'sudo -s' link files? A 'sudo ln -s' should be done instead
.