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 list CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: 5.5 ISO size vs RHEL
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- To: CentOS mailing list <centos@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: 5.5 ISO size vs RHEL
- From: John R Pierce <pierce@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 10:55:06 -0700
- Delivered-to: centos@xxxxxxxxxx
- In-reply-to: <4BF421F9.3020100@xxxxxxxxx>
- References: <4BF3F9E1.2030407@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4BF40EA9.2020000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4BF41BC1.6010505@xxxxxxxxx> <4BF41E81.10403@xxxxxxxxxxxx> <4BF421F9.3020100@xxxxxxxxx>
- User-agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (Windows/20100228)
- References:
- 5.5 ISO size vs RHEL
- From: Anthony Caetano
- Re: 5.5 ISO size vs RHEL
- From: Todd Denniston
- Re: 5.5 ISO size vs RHEL
- From: Karanbir Singh
- Re: 5.5 ISO size vs RHEL
- From: John R Pierce
- Re: 5.5 ISO size vs RHEL
- From: Les Mikesell
- 5.5 ISO size vs RHEL
- Prev by Date: Re: Generic RAID question
- Next by Date: Re: Generic RAID question
- Previous by thread: Re: 5.5 ISO size vs RHEL
- Next by thread: Re: 5.5 ISO size vs RHEL
- Index(es):
 |