Lamar Owen
2021-Mar-15 20:25 UTC
[CentOS] CentOS-7-x86_64-dvd-2009.iso is too big for DVD blanks
On 3/15/21 8:51 AM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:> Exactly that. Upstream Fedora and RHEL went to require dual density around > Fedora 18, RHEL-7 because the amount of data was too much.Well, what's odd is that the actual upstream RHEL 7.9 DVD WILL fit on a single-layer DVD.? Just burned one.
Stephen John Smoogen
2021-Mar-15 21:04 UTC
[CentOS] CentOS-7-x86_64-dvd-2009.iso is too big for DVD blanks
On Mon, 15 Mar 2021 at 16:26, Lamar Owen <lowen at pari.edu> wrote:> On 3/15/21 8:51 AM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > > Exactly that. Upstream Fedora and RHEL went to require dual density > around > > Fedora 18, RHEL-7 because the amount of data was too much. > Well, what's odd is that the actual upstream RHEL 7.9 DVD WILL fit on a > single-layer DVD. Just burned one. > >Well I am batting 0 for 1000 today. I am clearly not a good resource at the moment :). Thanks Lamar for checking the real source. -- Stephen J Smoogen.
Rob Kampen
2021-Mar-16 07:05 UTC
[CentOS] CentOS-7-x86_64-dvd-2009.iso is too big for DVD blanks
On 16/03/21 9:25 am, Lamar Owen wrote:> On 3/15/21 8:51 AM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: >> Exactly that. Upstream Fedora and RHEL went to require dual density >> around >> Fedora 18, RHEL-7 because the amount of data was too much. > Well, what's odd is that the actual upstream RHEL 7.9 DVD WILL fit on > a single-layer DVD.? Just burned one.I seem to recall that RHEL and CentOS bundle their products differently - hence RHEL has bits divided into other groups, whereas CentOS combines them ....> > _______________________________________________ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS at centos.org > https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos