<div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 11:26 AM, Laurentiu Pancescu <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:lpancescu@gmail.com" target="_blank">lpancescu@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><span class="gmail-">On 15/12/16 00:18, Marcin Dulak wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
I'm still thinking there can be something in centos box.ovf that makes it<br>
vulnerable to such changes.<br>
Someone familiar with the specification should be able to comment on this.<br>
In the meantime I created an issue with vagrant:<br>
<a href="https://github.com/mitchellh/vagrant/issues/8105" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://github.com/mitchellh/v<wbr>agrant/issues/8105</a><br>
Are you getting the correct boot order from centos/7 as described in the<br>
vagrant issue?<br>
</blockquote>
<br></span>
No, I get the default boot order:<span class="gmail-"><br>
boot1="floppy"<br>
boot2="dvd"<br>
boot3="disk"<br>
boot4="none"<br>
<br></span>
I see other settings imported correctly by VirtualBox (memory, cpus, storage controllers, network), and it doesn't display any error or warning if I import it manually:<br>
<br>
$ VBoxManage import ~/.vagrant.d/boxes/centos-VAGR<wbr>ANTSLASH-7/1610.01/virtualbox/<wbr>box.ovf<br>
0%...10%...20%...30%...40%...5<wbr>0%...60%...70%...80%...90%...1<wbr>00%<br>
Interpreting /Users/laur/.vagrant.d/boxes/c<wbr>entos-VAGRANTSLASH-7/1610.01/v<wbr>irtualbox/box.ovf...<br>
OK.<br>
Disks:<br>
vmdisk1 42949672960 -1 <a href="http://www.vmware.com/interfaces/specifications/vmdk.html#streamOptimized" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.vmware.com/interfac<wbr>es/specifications/vmdk.html#<wbr>streamOptimized</a> centos-7-1-1.x86_64.vmdk -1 -1<br>
<br>
Virtual system 0:<br>
0: Suggested OS type: "RedHat_64"<br>
(change with "--vsys 0 --ostype <type>"; use "list ostypes" to list all possible values)<br>
1: Suggested VM name "centos-7-1-1.x86_64"<br>
(change with "--vsys 0 --vmname <name>")<br>
2: Number of CPUs: 1<br>
(change with "--vsys 0 --cpus <n>")<br>
3: Guest memory: 512 MB<br>
(change with "--vsys 0 --memory <MB>")<br>
4: Network adapter: orig NAT, config 3, extra type=NAT<br>
5: IDE controller, type PIIX4<br>
(disable with "--vsys 0 --unit 5 --ignore")<br>
6: IDE controller, type PIIX4<br>
(disable with "--vsys 0 --unit 6 --ignore")<br>
7: Hard disk image: source image=centos-7-1-1.x86_64.vmdk<wbr>, target path=/Users/laur/VirtualBox VMs/centos-7-1-1.x86_64/centos<wbr>-7-1-1.x86_64.vmdk, controller=5;channel=0<br>
(change target path with "--vsys 0 --unit 7 --disk path";<br>
disable with "--vsys 0 --unit 7 --ignore")<br>
0%...10%...20%...30%...40%...5<wbr>0%...60%...70%...80%...90%...1<wbr>00%<br>
Successfully imported the appliance.<br>
<br>
The Debian images don't even bother to specify a boot order, I doubt it makes a difference in practice. But if you think it's important, you can file a bug report against Image Factory (<a href="http://imgfac.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">imgfac.org</a>) - such a change would have to be made upstream.</blockquote><div><br><a href="https://github.com/redhat-imaging/imagefactory/issues/393">https://github.com/redhat-imaging/imagefactory/issues/393</a><br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div class="gmail-HOEnZb"><div class="gmail-h5"><br>
<br>
Best regards,<br>
Laurențiu<br>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
CentOS-devel mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:CentOS-devel@centos.org" target="_blank">CentOS-devel@centos.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.centos.org/mailm<wbr>an/listinfo/centos-devel</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div>