To put it better, a samba shared FS on a local system is still
representing a remote FS and the operation you want to do on it are
nothing but what you want to be done on the remote FS. Thus, when the
remote FS has only 5MB size it wouldn't be allowing any operation
running out of space, like copying an 8MB file to it. When this remote
FS is mounted on a local FS, it still needs to reflect the same
character or else it doesn't fit as an ideal sharing of a remote FS
locally. Hence, it shouldn't allow you to copy a file to the locally
mounted shared FS, when the file is bigger than the space available in
remote FS. If it allows you to copy it to locally mounted+shared FS, it
doesn't make sense as it still can't be reflected on the remote server
due to non-availability of space.
Thus it is not a bug, but rather the most logical response not to allow
copying a 8MB file over a remote shared FS of max size available=5MB,
but locally mounted on an FS which has max avail size=10MB(as a local
FS, but not when it represents the remote FS). If you can prove
otherwise, please feel free to reopen this bug. Thanks.
** Changed in: nautilus (Ubuntu)
Status: New => Invalid
--
Can't copy to disk mounted under a Samba share if space doesn't exist in the
share
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/243431
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
