Bug 783240

Summary:	Make virt-v2v work on Red Hat Cluster Suite guests (RHEL 5 Xen using xm, no libvirt)
Product:	Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6	Reporter:	Eric Blake <eblake>
Component:	virt-v2v	Assignee:	Matthew Booth <mbooth>
Status:	CLOSED CANTFIX	QA Contact:	Virtualization Bugs <virt-bugs>
Severity:	medium	Docs Contact:
Priority:	medium
Version:	6.3	CC:	acathrow, ajia, bsarathy, byount, dallan, dyuan, eblake, kmasaryk, lcui, lnovich, morazi, mzhan, rjones, rwu, tzheng, veillard, yupzhang
Target Milestone:	rc	Keywords:	Reopened
Target Release:	---
Hardware:	x86_64
OS:	Linux
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:		Doc Type:	Bug Fix
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:	769506
Clones:	852442 (view as bug list)		Environment:
Last Closed:	2013-02-12 14:55:33 UTC	Type:	---
Regression:	---	Mount Type:	---
Documentation:	---	CRM:
Verified Versions:		Category:	---
oVirt Team:	---	RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team:	---	Target Upstream Version:
Bug Depends On:	769506
Bug Blocks:	782183, 840699, 852442, 869585, 878463

Description Eric Blake 2012-01-19 18:17:58 UTC

+++ This bug was initially created as a clone of Bug #769506 +++

Description of problem:
As usual, users are very confused for what's the 'format' argument for 'domxml-from-native' and 'domxml-to-native' commands, then they often try some obvious values of 'xen' or 'xm' for a xen domain, 'qemu' for a qemu domain, however, they don't work. 

Because libvirt defines some internal 'format' value, but virsh help or virsh man page doesn't tell users these, so we need to improve virsh document, this bug is used for tracing the issue.

...

--- Additional comment from eblake on 2012-01-18 14:50:37 MST ---

An additional upstream patch idea was proposed for further improving things:

https://www.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/2012-January/msg00604.html

This would add the 'virsh domxml-formats' command to list the formats supported by each hypervisor.  The v1 proposal added a new API, but comments on that thread suggested that using hypervisor capability xml would be sufficient instead, and I am still working on a v2 proposal.  Should we reopen this bug to include those improvements?

--- Additional comment from dallan on 2012-01-18 19:42:25 MST ---

No, open a separate BZ.

Comment 1 Eric Blake 2012-01-19 18:22:07 UTC

If we went with the proposed v1 patch, it is an API addition and must be in the 0.9.10 release.  But if we go with the proposed v2 idea of reusing capability XML, then there is no API change and can be added post-0.9.10.