Am 19.05.10 19:32, schrieb Todd Denniston:
> Karanbir Singh wrote, On 05/19/2010 01:11 PM:
>> On 05/19/2010 05:15 PM, Todd Denniston wrote:
We use CentOS and RHEL, the 5.5 RHEL ISO for x86_64 is 3.7GB (**), the
CentOS one
is 4602MB (***) split over two DVDs. Is this reasonable and
Les Mikesell wrote:
> Unless maybe it was downloaded to a VFAT partition - but that's a
> generic problem with dvd images.
>
well, FAT is a problem regardless of OS or wordsize, it flat out doesn't
support files greater than 4GB
___
CentOS mailing
On 5/19/2010 12:23 PM, John R Pierce wrote:
> Karanbir Singh wrote:
>> On 05/19/2010 05:15 PM, Todd Denniston wrote:
>>
We use CentOS and RHEL, the 5.5 RHEL ISO for x86_64 is 3.7GB (**), the
CentOS one
is 4602MB (***) split over two DVDs. Is this reasonable and correct?
>>> wo
Karanbir Singh wrote, On 05/19/2010 01:11 PM:
> On 05/19/2010 05:15 PM, Todd Denniston wrote:
>>> We use CentOS and RHEL, the 5.5 RHEL ISO for x86_64 is 3.7GB (**), the
>>> CentOS one
>>> is 4602MB (***) split over two DVDs. Is this reasonable and correct?
>> would have been nice if the split wou
Karanbir Singh wrote:
> On 05/19/2010 05:15 PM, Todd Denniston wrote:
>
>>> We use CentOS and RHEL, the 5.5 RHEL ISO for x86_64 is 3.7GB (**), the
>>> CentOS one
>>> is 4602MB (***) split over two DVDs. Is this reasonable and correct?
>>>
>> would have been nice if the split would have
On 05/19/2010 05:15 PM, Todd Denniston wrote:
>> We use CentOS and RHEL, the 5.5 RHEL ISO for x86_64 is 3.7GB (**), the
>> CentOS one
>> is 4602MB (***) split over two DVDs. Is this reasonable and correct?
>
> would have been nice if the split would have been below 32 bit MS tool limits.
>
which
From: Tony Molloy
> On Wednesday 19 May 2010 15:46:57 Anthony Caetano wrote:
>> We use CentOS and RHEL, the 5.5 RHEL ISO for x86_64 is 3.7GB (**),
>> the CentOS one is 4602MB (***) split over two DVDs. Is this
>> reasonable and correct?
>> ** the md5sum checks out, and RHN lists the size as 3,
On Wednesday 19 May 2010 17:24:49 Rudi Ahlers wrote:
> On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 6:21 PM, Tony Molloy wrote:
> > On Wednesday 19 May 2010 15:46:57 Anthony Caetano wrote:
> > > Hi
> > >
> > > We use CentOS and RHEL, the 5.5 RHEL ISO for x86_64 is 3.7GB (**), the
> > > CentOS one is 4602MB (***) spl
On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 6:21 PM, Tony Molloy wrote:
> On Wednesday 19 May 2010 15:46:57 Anthony Caetano wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> > We use CentOS and RHEL, the 5.5 RHEL ISO for x86_64 is 3.7GB (**), the
> > CentOS one is 4602MB (***) split over two DVDs. Is this reasonable and
> > correct? Any ide
On Wednesday 19 May 2010 15:46:57 Anthony Caetano wrote:
> Hi
>
> We use CentOS and RHEL, the 5.5 RHEL ISO for x86_64 is 3.7GB (**), the
> CentOS one is 4602MB (***) split over two DVDs. Is this reasonable and
> correct? Any ideas why would there be such a discrepancy if they are
> built from
Anthony Caetano wrote, On 05/19/2010 10:46 AM:
> Hi
>
> We use CentOS and RHEL, the 5.5 RHEL ISO for x86_64 is 3.7GB (**), the CentOS
> one
> is 4602MB (***) split over two DVDs. Is this reasonable and correct?
would have been nice if the split would have been below 32 bit MS tool limits.
>
On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 10:46 AM, Anthony Caetano
wrote:
> Hi
>
> We use CentOS and RHEL, the 5.5 RHEL ISO for x86_64 is 3.7GB (**), the CentOS
> one
> is 4602MB (***) split over two DVDs. Is this reasonable and correct? Any
> ideas
> why would there be such a discrepancy if they are built fro
Hi
We use CentOS and RHEL, the 5.5 RHEL ISO for x86_64 is 3.7GB (**), the CentOS
one
is 4602MB (***) split over two DVDs. Is this reasonable and correct? Any
ideas
why would there be such a discrepancy if they are built from the same (or very
similar) source?
Regards
Anthony Caetano
** t
13 matches
Mail list logo
