[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#769850: libc6: file not showing up



Package: libc6
Version: 2.19-12
Severity: important

There's a bug somewhere, and as seemingly obvious what the problem may be to one who is "new" to using commands, listing things with "ls" as an experienced user should list everything that is actually stored on the drive.

simply,
(1) "ls -la" was issued , and the file of interest
"barnyard2_v2-1.13.tar.gz" did not display

(2) mv ../barnyard2_v2-1.13.tar.gz .<enter>

There's now a "prompt" to overwrite barnyard2_v2-1.13.tar.gz

With everything still visual on terminal display and double checking there was no file of this name in the current path as there was indeed no more than 10 items to quicky glance from output.

Again, with "everything still visual" -- meaning no scroll-up buffers with the terminal (which can sometimes cut display output) or anything, it was very clear "ls" was not outputting everything which is very odd.

furthermore to check things,
- There were no bash ls aliases, nor other "ls" in $PATH or other shell functions which could explain this
- Filesystem consistency was also in good state

..coreutils 8.23-3 here on jessie/testing which contains the ls command

Should I file a report to the coreutils package? I know there's a bug but currently I can't pinpoint exactly what may have caused this,

fwiw, something a couple weeks ago I filed upstream concerning two filenames in the same path, another very rare bug. https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=86541

^ If this is not an "ls" or an "libc" bug, then there indeed be a kernel/ext4 issue. I know there is nothing else that could be causing this (eg, faulty drive hardware), since this latest bugreport happened in VM which nullifies any hardware problems...

Simply, "ls -la", file XYZ not there, "mv ../XYZ .<enter>" now it's prompting to overwrite. Can still see everything from "ls -la", double-checked the few items listed, yup "XYZ" is again not there.

odd indeed.


Reply to: