Bug 1513839

Summary:	[RFE] virt-v2v support for RHEL Atomic
Product:	Red Hat Enterprise Linux Advanced Virtualization	Reporter:	Brett Thurber <bthurber>
Component:	libguestfs	Assignee:	Libvirt Maintainers <libvirt-maint>
Status:	CLOSED WONTFIX	QA Contact:	Virtualization Bugs <virt-bugs>
Severity:	low	Docs Contact:
Priority:	unspecified
Version:	---	CC:	dustymabe, jspanko, jsuchane, knoel, mxie, mzhan, ptoscano, rjones, tzheng
Target Milestone:	pre-dev-freeze	Keywords:	FutureFeature
Target Release:	---
Hardware:	All
OS:	Linux
Whiteboard:	V2V
Fixed In Version:		Doc Type:	If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:	2019-08-29 15:36:41 UTC	Type:	Feature Request
Regression:	---	Mount Type:	---
Documentation:	---	CRM:
Verified Versions:		Category:	---
oVirt Team:	---	RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team:	---	Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:
Bug Depends On:	1102241
Bug Blocks:

Description Brett Thurber 2017-11-16 05:13:40 UTC

Description of problem:
virt-v2v doesn't support RHEL Atomic as a recognized OS.  This is needed when migrating RHEL Atomic VM's from 3rd part virt providers such as VMware.


Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
virt-v2v-1.37.31-1.fc27.x86_64

How reproducible:
Every time.

Steps to Reproduce:
1.  Use virt-v2v in F27 to try and migrate a RHEL Atomic VM from VMware
2.
3.

Actual results:
Fails to recognize RHEL Atomic as a supported OS.

Expected results:
Successfully recognizes RHEL Atomic as a supported OS and able to convert/migrate VM.

Additional info:

Comment 4 Jaroslav Suchanek 2019-08-29 14:45:25 UTC

Is it still valid requirement?

Comment 5 Brett Thurber 2019-08-29 15:25:54 UTC

(In reply to Jaroslav Suchanek from comment #4)
> Is it still valid requirement?

We haven't seen any requests so far.  I think it is safe to close for now and we can revisit later if needed.

Comment 6 Jaroslav Suchanek 2019-08-29 15:36:41 UTC

(In reply to Brett Thurber from comment #5)
> (In reply to Jaroslav Suchanek from comment #4)
> > Is it still valid requirement?
> 
> We haven't seen any requests so far.  I think it is safe to close for now
> and we can revisit later if needed.

Thanks for prompt reply. Closing for now.