Robert wrote: > 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 >> version? >> > 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.... mark > _______________________________________________ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS at centos.org > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos > -- 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