Created attachment 119809 [details] screen shot showing the differing results SUMMARY The folder size of a boot2Qt folder is calculated differently from "du -h" as shown in the screen shot. STEPS TO REPRODUCE 1. Open folder in Filelight 2. Open same folder in Konsole 3. Run "du -h ." and compare the two numbers OBSERVED RESULT The calculates sizes differ. SOFTWARE/OS VERSIONS KDE Frameworks Version: 5.44.0 Qt Version: 5.9.5
Dolphin (right-click -> Properties) agrees approximately with "du -h ."
Hi there, Thanks for reporting the bug. I tested this one with more than 10 different folders (to see if somehow the length of the folder name meddles with the size calculation) but couldn't see that happening. Every time it worked correctly. Can you still reproduce it? Or maybe it's been resolved?
Hi, I suspect it has something to do with how the boot2qt folder is arranged. Maybe symlinks or hardlinks ... or maybe loads of small files or so. I cannot see it on "normal folders" but I am also not in a position to build a boot2qt image anymore for three reasons. 1. I run Arch now which is not a supported Linux distro for boot2qt (and it fails to build) 2. my current computer has an N5000 CPU with which a boot2qt build will probably run two weeks 3. that computer also only has 250G hard disk space, so I am quite low on free space with my normal system already So if you happen to sit on a Debian/Ubuntu box with a big CPU and some 100G free hard disk space, you could try a boot2qt build and check that folder? These instructions should still work: $> git clone git://code.qt.io/yocto/meta-boot2qt.git $> cd meta-boot2qt $> git checkout v5.15.4-lts $> ./b2qt-init-build-env init --device raspberrypi3 $> export MACHINE=raspberrypi3 $> source setup-environment.sh $> bitbake -s $> bitbake b2qt-embedded-qt5-image $> bitbake meta-toolchain-b2qt-embedded-qt5-sdk The last two commands will take their time. Sorry that I cannot be of more help here.
Thanks, I'll try that out.
Tried but cannot reproduce it. "du -hs" and filelight both report very similar size info. There're minor differences which I assume caused by GiB - GB difference. Could it be related to a previous version?