How do you know that what du reports to you is always OK??? You didn't seem to have performed any independent validation for this. As I mentioned above du on a cifs-mounted filesystem is clearly bullshitting me, showing that a 9 mb directory takes 231 mb. mc's output, however, is consistent with the true directory size which I obtained by counting the files manually and the one shown by Nautilus.
In what concerns your other points, you obviously do not understand the way ls and directory size count features work. 1) Unless mc is explicitly asked to count the size of the directory it defaults to the output of ls, which is to report the amount of blocks currently used for the directory entry. That's why in most of the cases it shows 4096 for you, as your file system uses 4K blocks. 2) Count directory sizes is a CPU and time intensive operation and is never performed unless you ask mc to do this explicitly. 3) When you exit the directory, the results of the counting operation are not cached, so when you re-enter it again you have to recount the whole thing again. I don't see any bug here. -- mc directory sizes not reliable https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/580221 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
