WTF? - CentsOS 6 x64 .iso fits on DVD (4GB) but i386 .iso does not (4.8GB)

[jvsrvcs]

WTF? Did someone screw up?

I can fit the x64 .iso on a DVD+R but not the i386 .iso onto a DVD+R. Does this stuff get tested or given any consideration? Is there a checklist? a matrix of things to do before a release or just a bunch of yahoo's slinging poop onto the net?

Can I buy the DVD's? oh yea RedHat. I am at the point of loss in so much time with CentOS that RedHat EL is the more economical option. I cannot imagine that I am the only one.

Why does this project exist?

[pschaff]

[quote]
jvsrvcs wrote:
WTF? Did someone screw up?[/quote]
Yes. There is a known issue that you would be aware of it you had bothered to read the [url=http://wiki.centos.org/Manuals/ReleaseNotes/CentOS6.0]release notes[/url]. It has also been discussed in multiple [url=https://www.centos.org/search.php?query=dvd-r&mid=30&action=showall&andor=AND]recent posts[/url].

[quote]
I can fit the x64 .iso on a DVD+R but not the i386 .iso onto a DVD+R. [/quote]
It will fit on DVD-R or dual-layer.

[quote]
Does this stuff get tested or given any consideration? Is there a checklist? a matrix of things to do before a release or just a bunch of yahoo's slinging poop onto the net?[/quote]
You are welcome to volunteer to help with QA.

[quote]
Can I buy the DVD's? oh yea RedHat. I am at the point of loss in so much time with CentOS that RedHat EL is the more economical option. I cannot imagine that I am the only one.

Why does this project exist?[/quote]
Apparently solely to provide an endless source of complaints from those who expect perfection from a free distribution. :-P

[AlanBartlett]

[b] jvsrvcs[/b],

Please take a couple of steps back and desist from your negativity. The attitude displayed in your current posts is bordering on the unacceptable.

A review of the [url=https://www.centos.org/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=28726&forum=54]Forum Guidelines[/url] would not be amiss. Thank you.

[satch89450]

[quote]
jvsrvcs wrote:
WTF? Did someone screw up?

I can fit the x64 .iso on a DVD+R but not the i386 .iso onto a DVD+R. Does this stuff get tested or given any consideration? Is there a checklist? a matrix of things to do before a release or just a bunch of yahoo's slinging poop onto the net?

Can I buy the DVD's? oh yea RedHat. I am at the point of loss in so much time with CentOS that RedHat EL is the more economical option. I cannot imagine that I am the only one.

Why does this project exist?[/quote]

Let's calm down a little. I was perplexed, too, until I talked with a system administrator friend (over beer -- so I paid for this analysis) and learned there could exist a reasonable explanation for the split in distribution methods between the 32-bit and 64-bit packaging of CentOS 6.0. This is not from a CentOS developer, so take with the appropriate amount of salt.

To the point: 64-bit computers are used for specific types of servers far more than 32-bit computers, so having the second DVD for optional packages in the 64-bit distribution doesn't get in the way of the typical server single-disk install. For 32-bit computers, those tend to be used for a wider class of target uses, so the inconvenience of having to switch disks in the middle of an install on tens or hundreds of computers outweighs the nuisance of finding dual-layer or DVD-R media to burn the ISO. This is particularly true for shops that add a kickstart file to their 32-bit ISO image before burning -- far more likely when CentOS is being used for desktops or in a lab environment, where you have many, many instances. (I've not tried it, but I would guess there's room in the first 64-bit ISO DVD to add a kickstart file, too, so again making it easy to deal with a gaggle of servers, although I would think that ther would be far more differences in servers than in other applications that would reduce the utility of the single kickstart file. Need to give the guy more beer.)

Now, that's one opinion of a guy who deals with this sort of stuff on a regular basis. That's not "CentOS official". But I think it's a thoughtful piece of reverse engineering.

Or it could be complete balderdash. You decide.

[pschaff]

[quote]
satch89450 wrote:
... That's not "CentOS official". But I think it's a thoughtful piece of reverse engineering.

Or it could be complete balderdash. You decide.[/quote]
Not "CentOS official" either, but you are not too far off the mark. There has been a desire, effort, and expectation to make installation from a single piece of media possible. It was a failure of the developers and the QA team not to test burn the final i386 DVD image on DVD+R media before it was released. Much testing is done with virtual machines and ISO images, but physical burns were also performed in the process - just not for this final update that got a bit too big for DVD+R. :oops:

OTOH, it is documented in the release notes, 6.0 is expected to have a short lifetime as 6.1 will be out ASAP, and the alternative of recalling/replacing the released ISO with two is not very pretty.

[Trapper]

Well, CentOS's arrogance in this matter just cost them a 34 machine customer that donates. Intelligence and good sense says that when a mistake of this magnitude is made you pull the incorrect iso, fix it and re-release it. Putting a blurp in the release note is arrogant stupidity and doesn't correct anything. It's just a CYA for CentOS .... but it's still a major screw up that they've elected to ignore.


We've gone elsewhere. Good day and good life.

[gerald_clark]

I guess buying a few DVD-R instead of DVD+R is an insurmountable task.