Mandriva 2006 - Error installing packages [solved]

[Pierre]

Just got my Mandriva-Linux-Powerpack-2006-DVD and have tried with both new install and upgrade of my 10.1 version.

 

In both cases I get a lot of messages like " Error installing packages..."

 

Have now stopped trying after 20 error messages in 5 minutes!

 

Is the ISO I burned corrupt or what? Checked the md5sum of the ISO and that is OK.

[Ixthusdan]

I have seen this occassionally with the new release.

It could be bad media; bad burn; or a problem with you machine, such as cd device or RAM/cpu. Mandriva has had bad disks before. Best to communicate with Mandriva about it. With more info, we could try to eliminate the possiblility that it is your hardware.

[Pierre]

Problem solved. Burned another DVD and installation went without a hitch.

[AussieJohn]

I am willing to bet that the original dvd and the newer one were NOT burned at the slowest speed possible. Hence one did not work and the other one by chance did work.

Now you know why it is recommended strongly that ISOs be burnt at the slowest speed possible.

 

Cheers. John.

[aRTee]

John, speed is only one issue. I'm willing to bet the bad burn was a dvd-r, not +r.

... But I might well lose that bet. Burning dvd's at low speed doesn't always help nor is it always better (true that it's generally not worse); if your drive and media are just not a good match, it won't do you any good...

 

 

On a side note, you guys do know it's possible to check the iso of a burnt disc in the reader that is going to be used for installation, at least in linux, right?

[Pierre]

To help you out. This is how it was done.

 

First DVD was a DVD+RW at 4x speed. I suspected it might not work. Been used a lot a not completely erased.

 

Second DVD a DVD+R. Burned at 8x. Agree +R works much betterthan -R.

[aRTee]

Thanks for the info.

Side note: dvd+/-rw discs actually find their optimum after about 5x use and erase cycles.

The problem is that they do get dirty which is much worse for a disc you still write to than one you just continue to read from...

[AussieJohn]

I think I said somewhere some time ago that using any type of -rw for burning an ISO for an OS would often not work whether CD or DVD. Regarding DVD-R, I have been using TDKs for yonks and have never had a problem, so to say that +r is superior I think is very misleading and just opinion.

I have always preferred to use major brand name discs even though they may cost a little more because the only time I have ever had disc problems is with cheap unknowns.

 

Cheers. John.

[ianw1974]

I had problems burning a Debian DVD recently. Pain in the butt. It's about 4.5GB or thereabouts.

 

The first burn I tried, bombed out at 90 percent, so wasted DVD-R. I figured it was the jigdo method for the download that perhaps screwed it, so I downloaded it again from the ftp server instead. This I burnt to DVD-R without any problems.

 

However, when I boot from the CD, and then when the installer is copying files over, I get errors saying it can't read the CD. Using WinISO (I know, Windows :P ) it was reporting bad blocks. I thought this is weird.

 

However, I'm sure the ISO image is fine, because I can use VMware to use the ISO and it'll boot from it and install no problems. I'm loathed to burn it again, unless I can figure out why I'm having problems.

 

That said, I did burn at 4x, and I'm wondering maybe I should be using alternative DVD's. So what should I use? DVD-R or DVD+R. Do people have problems with "cheaper" brands over those that cost a little bit more?

 

I bought a tub of 50 DVD-R's, and they did only cost me about £15, so I know I have "el cheapo" DVD's. I never had problems burning the Mandriva LE2005 2GB DVD though.

[aRTee]

John, I agree with the RW discs being problematic.

 

I also agree with unbranded discs having higher risks.

 

However, I disagree with your statement that it's misleading that +r is superior. Why? Because, technically, it is superior. (If I really need to get you the links that explain that tech stuff, let me know, I'll try to find it again, and it may take some time, ... but it is a fact.)

Not that it matters, because to the computer user, it hardly makes a difference, mostly due to how people use dvd recordables and rewritables.

 

Back to the -r statement that I would guess they are less good: another fact is that the dvd-forum, who ratifies the standards of dvd, including -video, -r and -rw, goes about validation and labeling differently from the +rw alliance. In effect, this means that it's relatively easy to get your products the label dvd-r(w). There is more and better quality control involved in getting a dvd+r(w) label on your discs.

Taking unbranded discs is therefor a higher risk with dvd- than dvd+ whereas in the case of branded discs the risk to damage the brand is higher so the manufacturer/brand owner won't mess around with cheap bad stuff.

 

In any case, what should not be left out in this picture is the immaturity of the dvd- and + standards - speeds are still being increased, new dyes are being used, etc.

 

Basically, the recommendation for a type depends on the exact type of the media plus the burner. Some burners have better results with some discs, etc...

So you may want to check out the results others have had with the same drive.

 

To be honest, I don't trust dvds with my precious backups - there has not been any duration testing data of nonaccelerated tests simply because the media and technology are still so young. Accelerated testing has been done, high-uv and slightly increased temperatures in a controlled environment to imitate aging, with mixed results. The last such test that I have seen dates back a bit, and as new media are faster and use different dyes one can't draw many conclusions... Aside that, those tests are not related to + or - discs, but specific types (with specific dyes and write strategies)...