Bugzilla will be upgraded to version 5.0 on a still to be determined date in the near future. The original upgrade date has been delayed.
Bug 58744 - Mount point / Space needed "-1034109 K"
Mount point / Space needed "-1034109 K"
Product: Red Hat Linux
Classification: Retired
Component: anaconda (Show other bugs)
alpha Linux
medium Severity low
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: Beth Uptagrafft
Beth Uptagrafft
Depends On:
  Show dependency treegraph
Reported: 2002-01-23 18:03 EST by john.goshdigian
Modified: 2007-04-18 12:39 EDT (History)
1 user (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2002-02-11 14:13:31 EST
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---

Attachments (Terms of Use)

  None (edit)
Description john.goshdigian 2002-01-23 18:03:48 EST
From Bugzilla Helper:
User-Agent: Mozilla/4.61 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.12-20smp i686)

Description of problem:
on 4GB drive,  when select packages to install that require more space than
error messsage reports negative space needed (-1034109K) for mount point "/"

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):

How reproducible:

Steps to Reproduce:
1. Prepare to  install onto 4GB drive
2. select custom, select everything

Actual Results:  installation formats partitions
then reports
Mount Point      Space needed
/                      -1034109 K

Expected Results:  Show amount of space needed, so user can determine how much
A) increase partition OR
B) remove packages. 

Additional info:

this happened on an ES40 with 7 drives, installing on a 4GB drive,
partitoin layout:
  1 -- 27  ext2   /boot
  27-- 91 swap
 91 --1023 ext2 /

selected all packages.
Comment 1 Beth Uptagrafft 2002-02-11 14:13:25 EST
We can not reproduce this problem.
Comment 2 Phil Copeland 2002-03-11 15:47:26 EST
Actually this was down to an older diskutils package that got it's math wrong.
We couldn't reproduce it because,.. elliot had already rebuilt the package with
a fix for i386 by the time we looked at it.

Lesson learned: don't underestimate of forget the importance of giving rpm
version numbers in bug reports 8)


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.