Re: [Libguestfs] [v2v PATCH v2] convert_linux: translate the first CD-ROM's references in boot conf files

On 12/16/21 18:32, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: Yes, that's it exactly! Comment 3 in the BZ touches on a question that I've had in mind myself, BTW: "BTW, rhel6 guest is not supported on rhel9 any more." I'm a bit confused as to how far back in time we plan to support guest OSes, and exactly how. Some example thoughts: - If we decide that we want to drop conversion support (even up-stream) up to and including RHEL6, then the virtio-transitional question falls away -- and *with it*, the very patch in this whole thread. :) - From commit ac39fa292c31 ("v2v: Set machine type explicitly for outputs which support it (RHBZ#1581428).", 2020-12-04), we have the following comment: + (* Pivot on the year 2007. Any Linux distro from earlier than + * 2007 should use i440fx, anything 2007 or newer should use q35. + * XXX Look up this information in libosinfo in future. + *) In case we pivoted -- based on any factor really -- such that RHEL5 ended up associated with the i440fx machine type, then it would not be affected by the virtio-transitional problem at all. I *think* that the motivation for using Q35 at all, even for guest OSes like RHEL5 and RHEL6, is motivated by RHEL downstream. (Upstream QEMU is unlikely to ever remove i440fx, in my opinion.) However, if we consider RHEL downstream a guiding principle, then we should also consider that RHEL6 (and earlier) are not supported on RHEL9+ hosts at all! So, while I'm admittedly confused, I feel like we're trying to fill a gap here that nobody really cares about. Personally I'd just keep RHEL5 and RHEL6 guests on i440fx, upstream, sidestepping the whole virtio-transitional problem, and allow RHEL9 hosts to forget about these guests in peace. Please enlighten me :) Back to this patch: after I (unknowingly) worked around RHBZ#1942325, manually, I managed to test the patch successfully. Can you please ACK it? Thanks, Laszlo