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
I have the same problem as Lukasz in Lucid with baobab 2.30.0.
--
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.
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
I have a similar problem in baobab 2.30.0.
I started baobab from root terminal to be sure that all directories are
counted. But it seems that instead of counting all directories, some of
subdirectories from my /home/lukasz directory are ignored! (see attachment)
** Attachment added:
** Changed in: gnome-utils (Ubuntu)
Status: Fix Committed = Fix Released
--
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.
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
Thanks for the fix! Working fine now on Jaunty x86_64 patching gnome-
utils-2.26.0 with the two patches above.
--
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.
--
Is this fixed in Ubuntu 9.10 Karmic Koala ?
Or is there any chance for a SRU for 9.04 ?
It does not affect any critical infrastructure packages and the patch is a few
lines.
Because so baobab is pretty useless, as it show completely wrong data
for ntfs (and less frequently for ext3).
--
Onlyodin,
as you can figure is the first time i compile from source. I'm pretty
newbe at this level. Thank you for your message.
I applied all the patches in the right sequence and I successfully complied the
package.
Unfortunately running baobab returns many critical errors. Maybe i have the
Alex, try applying the ubuntu patch found here:
https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/jaunty/+source/gnome-utils/2.26.0-0ubuntu1
Then apply the patches further up this thread. Worked for me.
--
Baobab reports incorrect sizes
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/341141
You received this bug notification
i downloaded the source code from there but the patch
http://git.gnome.org/cgit/gnome-utils/diff/baobab/src/baobab-
scan.c?h=gnome-2-26id=bc09d54a97723fc524b23c20b9a2bbb81524afcd
return the error i posted.
the other two files (***.diff.gz and ***.dsc) aren't patches ... am I
wrong?
Thank you
Alex, the .diff.gz file is the one you want, as the .gz extension
denotes, this file is gzipped and needs to be decompressed prior to
patching the original source.
You then need to apply the first patch Paolo submitted:
http://launchpadlibrarian.net/28481108/0001-Fix-gio-inode-and-device-
i tried to patch the source gnome-utils_2.26.0.orig.tar.gz
I received the error:
patching file baobab/src/baobab-scan.c
Hunk #1 FAILED at 102.
1 out of 1 hunk FAILED -- saving rejects to file baobab/src/baobab-scan.c.rej
where did i nade mistakes?
thank you for the answer.
Alex
--
Baobab
Yep, all good with the typo fixed for me too.
--
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.
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com
** 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
Yep, that worked a treat, thanks Paolo :-)
--
Baobab reports incorrect sizes (with NTFS long-name files)
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/341141
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
JohnLM, I was experiencing that with ext3 as well, the problem wasn't
just NTFS related.
--
Baobab reports incorrect sizes (with NTFS long-name files)
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/341141
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
Thanks everybody for testing.
Actually the patch had a small bug in it and I committed a small
modification on top of that patch:
http://git.gnome.org/cgit/gnome-utils/diff/baobab/src/baobab-
scan.c?h=gnome-2-26id=bc09d54a97723fc524b23c20b9a2bbb81524afcd
Can you guys test if things still work
@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
If I copy paste this into a file and do patch -p1 patch_file (in my
already patched gnome-utils-2.26.0), I get:
patching file baobab/src/baobab-scan.c
patch: malformed patch at line 6: hl.device =
g_file_info_get_attribute_uint32 (s,
How should I apply this one?
Ernst
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009
Sorry, here is a properly formattaed patch
** Attachment added: 0001-Fix-typo-in-the-last-patch.patch
http://launchpadlibrarian.net/28511243/0001-Fix-typo-in-the-last-patch.patch
--
Baobab reports incorrect sizes
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/341141
You received this bug notification
The typo patch works fine.
--
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.
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com
Can you guys try with this patch and see if it improves things?
Even if it doesn't fix things, it would be helpful to know if the
warning Could not obtain inode and device for hardlink is printed to
the terminal
** Attachment added:
0001-Fix-gio-inode-and-device-handling-for-hardlinks.patch
ops, sorry attached the wrong version of the patch, here is one that
actually compiles.
(patch is against latest git version, but should apply also to previous
versions)
** Attachment added:
0001-Fix-gio-inode-and-device-handling-for-hardlinks.patch
I'd love to test this out, but I never used a patch. I will check out the
repository with the latest code, but how do I apply the patch to the source
code?
On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 13:41, Paolo Borelli pbore...@katamail.com
wrote:
ops, sorry attached the wrong version of the patch, here is one
get the sources either from git or from a released tarball and then
apply the patch with
patch -p1 0001-Fix-gio-inode-and-device-handling-for-hardlinks.patch
--
Baobab reports incorrect sizes
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/341141
You received this bug notification because you are a member of
This patch fixed it for me in the gnome-utils-2.26.0 package :-).
Thanks!
On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 14:29, Paolo Borelli pbore...@katamail.com
wrote:
patch -p1 0001-Fix-gio-inode-and-device-handling-for-hardlinks.patch
--
Baobab reports incorrect sizes
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/341141
Patch committed to current development branch. Will be available in next
major release.
Thanks Paolo!
--
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.
--
Patch committed to current development branch. Will be available in next
major release.
Thanks Paolo!
--
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.
--
** Changed in: gnome-utils (Ubuntu)
Status: New = Fix Committed
--
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.
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
That worked for me too.
Thanks!
--
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.
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com
I can confirm this bug. I've got several external USB drives formatted
as NTFS. These drives were filled with media files over many older
versions of Ubuntu, though now I'm running Jaunty. When Baobab scans
these drives, it reports a wrong size for almost every folder containing
files with long
@JohnLM: I'm not sure it could be related to the interface code. That
part just displays a total amount number.
--
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.
--
If I do
du -h --max-depth=0
inside the 'problematic' map, I get the output:
21G
Baobab tells me the size of the folder is 1.0G.
If you want more tests, please ask me: I really want to help to solve
this bug!
--
Baobab reports incorrect sizes
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/341141
You
@Ernst
Thank you for reporting, but I still can reproduce the bug. It could be
interesting to investigate why this folder is so problematic...
Do you have soft or hard links inside that folder? Something else not
standard?
--
Baobab reports incorrect sizes
@Ernst
Do you get any difference by switching the View-Allocated Space on and
off?
--
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.
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
Switching the view doesn't matter.
However, Baobab reports I have hard links in the folders - after
expanding the folders, I think it accounts for all the 'lost' space
inside Baobab.
Thus, I went to a folder which showed empty and remove a character. Now,
Baobab show this file in the summary. If
I searched for 'ntfs-3g hard links' and I found this forum thread:
http://forum.ntfs-3g.org/viewtopic.php?f=2t=1149
It is actually about Baobab and gives a reason why some files have multiple
hard links in NTFS.
Hopefully, this is useful to you :-)
--
Baobab reports incorrect sizes
As I am understanding, this possibile bug is related only to ntfs long
names, so maybe the title should be tuned up.
Anyway, hard links are correclty reported in Baobab. Try scanning
/usr/bin folder and you will see that in the folder description will be
displayed Contains hard links for: xx MB.
What do you mean by 'hard links are correctly reported'? In my case,
files with more than one hard link are not used in the ring chart and in
the overview of sizes (which is not correct).
So, Baobab gets the (correct) information about the file sizes. However,
if a file has more than one hard
You are welcome, Ernst. Thank you.
--
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.
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com
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
** Changed in: gnome-utils (Ubuntu)
Status: Incomplete = New
** Changed in: gnome-utils (Ubuntu)
Assignee: (unassigned) = Ubuntu Desktop Bugs (desktop-bugs)
--
Baobab reports incorrect sizes
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/341141
You received this bug notification because you are a
I reported this bug earlier on 8.10. I can confirm this bug on 9.04
(Jaunty) 32-bit too. (I reinstalled, no dist-upgrade.) Maybe it is
useful to report that this bug appears on my ntfs share (as you can see
in the screenshot I posted earlier).
--
Baobab reports incorrect sizes
Unfortunatley, I have no ntfs shares available at the moment. I have
tested this functionality on a remote ssh and ftp site, and it is
working correctly.
--
Baobab reports incorrect sizes
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/341141
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
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
As I reported in a previous post, Baobab gets the size with
g_file_info_get_size() from Gio library. Nothing fancy. Maybe a Gio bug?
I will investigate with developers.
--
Baobab reports incorrect sizes
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/341141
You received this bug notification because you are a
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
Hi, I'm also affected by this bug. See the attached screenshot:
- GParted shows 40 GB is used
- The 'properties' window of Nautilus shows 40 GB used
- However, Disk Usage Analyser shows only 2.7 GB.
I'm using 8.10, 32-bit, with the backports and proposed repo's enabled.
** Attachment added:
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
Baobab doesn't use gnome-vfs. It uses (as nautilus does) Gio.
--
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.
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
I don't know how nautilus sums up space in the Properties window, but
Baobab makes a full scan, file by file, traversing every directory and
getting the size from g_file_info_get_size() from Gio library.
--
Baobab reports incorrect sizes
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/341141
You received this
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.
--
That' very strange, as no change has been made in the scanning module
from Hardy to Intrepid...
--
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.
--
ubuntu-bugs
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
Maybe you are displaying allocated space. Try switching the checkbox in
View-Allocated Space
--
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.
--
ubuntu-bugs
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
** 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.
--
We can investigate more, but I can assure that baobab scans each file in each
directory, without discarding anything that is readable to the user.
Don't know what nautilus does. Could you pls check if your misc folder
contains any not standard file?
--
Baobab reports incorrect sizes
** Changed in: gnome-utils (Ubuntu)
Importance: Undecided = Low
Status: New = Incomplete
--
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.
--
ubuntu-bugs
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
61 matches
Mail list logo
