Bug 58744 – Mount point / Space needed "-1034109 K"

Bug 58744 - Mount point / Space needed "-1034109 K"

Summary:	Mount point / Space needed "-1034109 K"

Status:	CLOSED CURRENTRELEASE

Aliases:	None

Product:	Red Hat Linux
Classification:	Retired
Component:	anaconda (Show other bugs)
Sub Component:
Version:	7.3
Hardware:	alpha Linux

Priority	medium Severity low
Target Milestone:	---
Target Release:	---
Assigned To:	Beth Uptagrafft
QA Contact:	Beth Uptagrafft
Docs Contact:

URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:

Depends On:
Blocks:
	Show dependency tree / graph

Reported:	2002-01-23 18:03 EST by john.goshdigian
Modified:	2007-04-18 12:39 EDT (History)
CC List:	1 user (show)

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

Attachments	(Terms of Use)
Add an attachment (proposed patch, testcase, etc.)

Groups: 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
available,
error messsage reports negative space needed (-1034109K) for mount point "/"


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


How reproducible:
Sometimes

Steps to Reproduce:
1. Prepare to  install onto 4GB drive
2. select custom, select everything
3.
	

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
to 
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)

Phil
=--=

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