Bug 865923

Summary:	Check that new qemu -machine option doesn't break libguestfs.
Product:	Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6	Reporter:	Richard W.M. Jones <rjones>
Component:	libguestfs	Assignee:	Richard W.M. Jones <rjones>
Status:	CLOSED CURRENTRELEASE	QA Contact:	Virtualization Bugs <virt-bugs>
Severity:	high	Docs Contact:
Priority:	medium
Version:	6.4	CC:	acathrow, bsarathy, dawu, dyasny, jbaron, juzhang, knoel, leiwang, lnovich, ltroan, masaki.kimura.kz, mitsuhiro.tanino.gm, mkenneth, moli, noboru.obata.ar, qguan, saguchi, shuang, smoriya, takahiro.yasui.mp, tburke, wshi
Target Milestone:	beta
Target Release:	6.4
Hardware:	All
OS:	Linux
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:		Doc Type:	Bug Fix
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:	859447	Environment:
Last Closed:	2013-02-27 10:26:05 UTC	Type:	---
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:	859447
Bug Blocks:

Description Richard W.M. Jones 2012-10-12 20:06:20 UTC

Bug 859447 will add the qemu -machine option from upstream
to qemu in RHEL 6 for the first time.

We have to check this doesn't break libguestfs.  libguestfs
may or may not require a rebuild after qemu has been changed.

Comment 1 Richard W.M. Jones 2012-10-23 08:36:15 UTC

I have verified (bug 868793#c3) that libguestfs is
fine after making this change in qemu.

Comment 2 Mohua Li 2013-02-06 12:29:34 UTC

for  libguestfs-1.16.34-2.el6.x86_64 , this bug could be verified, as no problem found during all our test

more detail, pls see

https://virtlab.englab.nay.redhat.com/job/63317/details/
https://virtlab.englab.nay.redhat.com/job/63323/details/
https://virtlab.englab.nay.redhat.com/job/63324/details/
https://virtlab.englab.nay.redhat.com/job/63325/details/
https://virtlab.englab.nay.redhat.com/job/63326/details/
https://virtlab.englab.nay.redhat.com/job/63346/details/

Comment 3 Richard W.M. Jones 2013-02-26 18:52:01 UTC

Hi moli, can we close this one now?  The change seems to have
had no adverse effect on libguestfs.  Just set it to
CLOSED -> [some suitable status] if you agree.

Comment 4 Mohua Li 2013-02-27 01:51:38 UTC

(In reply to comment #3)
> Hi moli, can we close this one now?  The change seems to have
> had no adverse effect on libguestfs.  Just set it to
> CLOSED -> [some suitable status] if you agree.

yes, agreed, btw, this bug not in errata?

Comment 5 Richard W.M. Jones 2013-02-27 10:26:05 UTC

(In reply to comment #4)
> yes, agreed, btw, this bug not in errata?

It wouldn't have affected any customer, so no erratum needed.