Hmm... interesting. Previous tests never shown any difference between user and
root.
Make sure scanned folders and files are user-readable, and both times you use
the same Apparent size setting.
If bug still presents itself, try patching baobab and try again. (It appears
though you can patch
** Summary changed:
- Baobab reports incorrect sizes
+ Baobab reports incorrect sizes (with NTFS long-name files)
** Description changed:
Binary package hint: gnome-utils
I've noticed the baobab (aka Disk Usage Analyzer) is not reporting sizes of
directories correctly.
I my particular
@Onlyodin
Was it? Well I also had this with ext3, but disregarded that as copy-paste from
ntfs.
oh well... more description edits...
--
Baobab reports incorrect sizes
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/341141
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is
** Summary changed:
- Baobab reports incorrect sizes (with NTFS long-name files)
+ Baobab reports incorrect sizes
** Description changed:
Binary package hint: gnome-utils
I've noticed the baobab (aka Disk Usage Analyzer) is not reporting sizes of
directories correctly.
I my particular
hmm took a peek into code... can't say I understand much, but I noticed version
2.24.1 uses Gio... just as you said, however 2.20.0.1 is using gnome-vfs - that
is quite a change in scanning module.
on other hand, a quick thought of mine was that we concentrate on scanning
module while the bug
Try testing it on local filesystem (like ext3).
Make sure you have a lot of files and lots of subfolders so they make up the
difference.
** Description changed:
Binary package hint: gnome-utils
I've noticed the baobab (aka Disk Usage Analyzer) is not reporting sizes of
directories
OK I did a bit more tests.
I didn't look at the actual code yet, but I grabbed three gnome-utils tarballs
from gnome.org and built them.
So I built them on my already mentioned Interpid box within home folder (so I
don't break preexisting gnome-utils).
Then run both compiled and repository
So I did some little tests. From now on this is definitely NOT a distro
or architecture specific bug!
Bug is present:
On both Interpid x86 and x86_64, and also on Fedora 10 x86_64 (and probably x86
as well)
Fedora is also using Baobab 2.24.1
There is also one more thing I've noticed... it may
It uses Gio? Might have missed that cause it doesn't show up as direct
dependency in APT.
And it does scan file by file, hmmm...
Anyways, this just makes it all the more cryptic...
I might try to play with the code, though I'm no expert.
I'll post if I have any luck!
--
Baobab reports
Well I tried baobab (2.20.0.1) on Hardy's LiveCD. Works fine... I guess
you can consider this a regression bug.
--
Baobab reports incorrect sizes
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/341141
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
--
Public bug reported:
Binary package hint: nautilus-image-converter
It is known that any recompression with lossy encoding will lead to further
reduction in quality.
My point is - there are number of utilities capable of rotating JPGs loselessy.
Providing an option for such (when applicable),
Strange indeed. I doubt there is something radically different between Hardy's
and Interpid's enviroments! Err... except me using 64bit Interpid and having
32bit Hardy LiveCD. I think I should also download Interpid 32bit (x86), just
to be sure it is not on 64bit only.
I thought there could be
Tried switching 'Allocated Space'. Changes by quite tiny numbers...
nowhere close difference I'm having.
btw also tried on ext3... does the same thing.
As I said it apparently this happens with folders with large number of files in
several levels of sub-folders. (At least it is easily noticeable
Public bug reported:
Binary package hint: gnome-utils
I've noticed the baobab (aka Disk Usage Analyzer) is not reporting sizes of
directories correctly.
I my particular case all scanned subfolders are readable (and even writable)
for user, so that is not a problem.
From what I can tell, it
** Attachment added: baobab_screenie.jpg
http://launchpadlibrarian.net/23754117/baobab_screenie.jpg
--
Baobab reports incorrect sizes
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/341141
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
--
No I believe it doesn't contain any non-standard file.
btw If it changes anything, partition is ntfs (fuse-ntfs3g), as you may have
guessed.
One thing what that suggests me nautilus is right is that Windows reports the
same numbers!
Also when I said I think it takes largest sub-folders... I in
16 matches
Mail list logo
