update-manager inconsistent with download size
Affects | Status | Importance | Assigned to | Milestone | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Software Updater |
Confirmed
|
Undecided
|
Unassigned | ||
update-manager (Ubuntu) |
Fix Released
|
Low
|
Robert Roth |
Bug Description
Binary package hint: update-manager
There are three places, where the update-manager states the download size of an update:
-For every package itself
-For all packages together
-During download
The first two and the third one differ. (see attachment - the total and the per-package difference has been fixed in the meantime, the difference between update-manager main window and the progress windows still exists)
When doing an update with update-manager some numbers displayed on screen come from update-manager and some from apt.
And now apt is displaying the numbers with decimal kilos (K=1000), and update-manager is displaying the numbers with binary kilos (K=1024). Even if the float problem is solved, this still gives a difference in display of about 4.8% for Megabyte numbers. (see some more details in my comment #9 above and some of the attached pictures).
Before this bug is set to 'Fix Released' I would like to raise the question if it would make sense to consistently use one and the same factor for kilo/mega representation throughout all package management programs. This could be done either by changing humanize_size to decimal as well, or changing apt/apt-
Related branches
- Michael Vogt: Pending requested
-
Diff: 72 lines (+12/-12)3 files modifiedUpdateManager/Core/MyCache.py (+1/-1)
UpdateManager/Core/utils.py (+7/-7)
UpdateManager/UpdateManager.py (+4/-4)
tags: | added: karmic |
summary: |
- [jaunty 64bit] update-manager inconsistent with download size + update-manager inconsistent with download size |
tags: | added: patch |
description: | updated |
Changed in update-manager (Ubuntu): | |
status: | Confirmed → Triaged |
importance: | Undecided → Low |
Changed in update-manager (Ubuntu): | |
status: | Triaged → In Progress |
description: | updated |
I see this in up to date 9.10 on i386. I am attaching a shot of the window showing the first inconsistency.