m.roth@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Matt wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 11:07 AM, <m.roth@xxxxxxxxx> 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?
>
> mark
>
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.
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
