Re: minor bug in "du" size calculator in build_all.sh
Le Sat, May 27, 2000 at 09:54:02AM +0100, Philip Hands écrivait:
> also, how come a SRCSIZELIMIT=645MB produces this:
>
> -rw-r--r-- 1 phil phil 679835648 May 27 02:55 potato-src-1.raw
> -rw-r--r-- 1 phil phil 681668608 May 27 02:58 potato-src-2.raw
> -rw-r--r-- 1 phil phil 603662336 May 27 03:02 potato-src-3.raw
>
> with CD#2 being over 650MB? Is there some extra stuff that's not
> being included in the size calculation, or is this down to the fact
> that every file gets rounded up to the nearest 2k in iso9660 images
> (are we taking account of that at present?)
The limit is for the size of the source files (*.dsc *.diff.gz*
*.tar.gz) that are listed in Sources.gz. Everything else is not
counted. That does mean that Sources.gz is not counted, md5sum.txt is not
counted... and there's the problem you mention (with many little files like
.dsc in particular).
> Can anyone confirm the rumour about CDs getting steadily more
> unreliable as they approach the 650MB --- I cannot say I've ever seen
> that, and I normally aim to fill the first CD.
I have never seen the problem (and I have an old Mitsumi/CD reader on one
of my old computer).
> I think we should aim for the binary CD#1's to be as large as possible
> though, so that there is as much chance as possible that a useful
> install can be achieved with just CD#1
Yes.
> It just occurred to me that because of the 2k rounding thing, the du
> calculation above is going to be inaccurate too. I'll look at doing a
> du in perl that rounds up to 2k, but won't have time to do it until
> Monday.
If you want to do it I won't prevent you but I think it's a bit overkill,
no ? Considering that the size calculation is not very precise (think
about all the files that we're copying and that are not used for the size
calculation...) I think that adding such a script is a waste of efforts.
Cheers,
--
Raphaël Hertzog -+- http://strasbourg.linuxfr.org/~raphael/
Reply to: