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

Bug#189415: marked as done (swapd: freemem() function changed in unexpected way)

Your message dated Wed, 1 Sep 2010 15:36:06 +0200
with message-id <20100901133606.GJ12469@melusine.alphascorpii.net>
and subject line Package got removed
has caused the Debian Bug report #189415,
regarding swapd: freemem() function changed in unexpected way
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
189415: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=189415
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
Package: swapd
Version: 0.2-9
Severity: important

The former (original) version of freemem took in account only
MemFree+SwapFree value it read from /proc/meminfo. The new version taken
from Nick Holloway's swapd takes in account also (Buffers+Cached)/2
value, making my swapd.conf with 'memlimit 16384' irrelevant since freemem
function now returns much bigger values. I think this addend should be
removed to bring the new behaviour of freemem to the old one.

-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
Architecture: i386
Kernel: Linux fluffy.isd.dp.ua 2.5.67-mm3 #3 Tue Apr 15 16:44:43 EEST 2003 i686
Locale: LANG=uk_UA, LC_CTYPE=uk_UA

Versions of packages swapd depends on:
ii  libc6                         2.3.1-16   GNU C Library: Shared libraries an

-- no debconf information

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
Version: 0.2-11+rm

Hi!

As the package got removed from the archive (Please see
http://bugs.debian.org/595091 for details) I hereby close these bug
report.

Best Regards,
  Alexander

--- End Message ---
Reply to: