> On 28 Oct 2015, at 13:53, Roman Kagan <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 12:10:19PM +1100, Vadim Rozenfeld wrote: >>>>> To sum up, the packaging and naming policy of the virtio-win rpm and the >>>>> virtio-win iso therein are different and neither is clear. Hardcoding >>>>> the policy in v2v without actually knowing it appears risky at best. >> >> It's due to historical reasons mostly. The best way would be having a set of >> separate >> distribution images packaged on per-platform base. > > Let me try to get the libguestfs requirements straight: > > given a set of Windows drivers, it should be able to identify the ones > appropriate for the particular Windows flavor, in order to > > 1) tell which devices can be configured > > 2) offline-"install" the storage driver and thus enable the guest too > boot > > 3) copy over the matching drivers into the guest and allow it to pick > them up on the first boot > > > Obviously virtio-win driver packaging and libguestfs must agree on how > to deal with this. > > Could you please provide any guidance on how to address this problem?
As Vadim said: "The best way would be having a set of separate distribution images packaged on per-platform base.” Otherwise you will have to maintain the knowledge of binary compatibility between Windows platforms, which is different according to the driver type. > > Thanks, > Roman. _______________________________________________ Libguestfs mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libguestfs
