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

Bug#365398: marked as done (apt-get fails when using ramfs)

Your message dated Wed, 14 Sep 2011 19:20:18 +0200
with message-id <CAAZ6_fAfTqMDLHuBohJkx6AZ-BD=3m8Eg+sPBmuBz4pSijL6zA@mail.gmail.com>
and subject line Close: apt-get fails when using ramfs
has caused the Debian Bug report #365398,
regarding apt-get fails when using ramfs
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.)


-- 
365398: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=365398
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
Package: apt
Version: 0.6.43.3
If /var/cache/apt/archives is a mounted ramfs filesystem, apt-get fails because it thinks there is no disk space.
df on a ramfs filesystem reports 0 blocks, 0 used, 0 free. This freaks apt-get out, because it doesn't think there is enough disk space. This isn't the case, though. A ramfs will grow when you put data in it.
apt-get could check that /var/cache/apt/archives isn't mounted as a filesystem that gives misleading reports such as ramfs, which is a blatant hack.
Perhaps this is really a problem with ramfs reporting bogus information. It seems that it would be reasonable to determine how much ram is available for a ramfs every time you make the system call.
I am using a fresh install of Debian unstable with the 2.6.16-1-486 kernel. This problem most likely spans far back with apt-get and/or ramfs. 

I will report this as a kernel bug, too(kernel.org, not Debian).

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
This looks for me more like an issue with ramfs.
Reporting zero as available size isn't exactly something i want
to hear from a filesystem if it isn't full -- and specialcasing ramfs
just for the sake of it doesn't sound worthy.

I would tag it wontfix, but given that it's unclear if it is
actually still the behavior of ramfs and as a similar and
(as it seems) much better alternative exists with tmpfs
i am closing this now.

Please feel free to reopen it, if you think i am wrong.


Best regards

David Kalnischkies

--- End Message ---
Reply to: