[CentOS] 5.4 DVD
m.roth at 5-cent.us
Sat Oct 24 02:49:24 UTC 2009
> m.roth at 5-cent.us wrote:
>> Matt wrote:
>>> On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 11:07 AM, <m.roth at 5-cent.us> wrote:
>>>> I admit I wasn't following the screaming and yelling about 5.4, so
>>>> excuse me if this has been answered....
>>>> My boss tells me he wants me to start rolling out 5.4. I want to d/l &
>>>> burn a DVD... but when I looked at a number of mirrors, the .iso is from
>>>> 1 Oct, while the CD .iso's are from the 14th... yet 5.4 was officially
>>>> announced the other day.
>>>> Am I missing something, or do the mirrors have a pre-release DVD .iso,
>>>> with no fixes in the last three weeks, or ...?
>>> The dates are likely based on when the ISO was actually created.
>>> Therefore, if the ISO was generated on Oct. 1st and no issues were found
>> with it in
>>> QA, then the date you are seeing on the mirrors is correct. The ISOs are
>>> based on the original 5.4 tree and don't include updates that Red Hat released
>>> after the initial release of RHEL 5.4.
>> But why are the 7-iso set of CD's from two weeks later? Or is it just that
>> folks felt that building those was more important than rebuilding the DVD
> Dates aside, the official Release Notes at
> http://wiki.centos.org/Manuals/ReleaseNotes/CentOS5.4 contains
> checksums for each of the isos. It seems to me that you should
> be able to apply those md5 and sha1 sums to the DVD.iso file, no
> matter the source, and be reasonably comfortable with the result.
Already did all that - I was trying to minimize updates, since we'll be using
the DVD for a while....
> CentOS mailing list
> CentOS at centos.org
Have you noticed that, when we were young, we were told
that "everybody else is doing it" was a really stupid
reason to do something, but now it's the standard reason
for picking a particular software package? -- Barry Gehm
More information about the CentOS