[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#10016: ls -lk is wrong
From: |
Alan Curry |
Subject: |
bug#10016: ls -lk is wrong |
Date: |
Thu, 10 Nov 2011 18:35:32 -0500 (GMT+5) |
I mentioned this already in the bug#9939 thread, but nobody replied and it's
really a separate issue so here's an independent report.
This behavior:
$ ls -l /bin/ls
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 107124 Feb 8 2011 /bin/ls
$ ls -lk /bin/ls
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 105 Feb 8 2011 /bin/ls
is awful. -k should not have any effect on the ls -l field that reports
st_size. It is only supposed to possibly affect the reporting of st_blocks
by -s and the "total" line at the start of a full directory listing.
I won't make any claims about what --block-size should do, but -k comes from
BSD and it should act like BSD.
--
Alan Curry
- bug#10016: ls -lk is wrong,
Alan Curry <=
- bug#10016: ls -lk is wrong, Eric Blake, 2011/11/10
- bug#10016: ls -lk is wrong, Eric Blake, 2011/11/11
- bug#10016: ls -lk is wrong, Jim Meyering, 2011/11/11
- bug#10016: ls -lk is wrong, Paul Eggert, 2011/11/11
- bug#10016: ls -lk is wrong, Eric Blake, 2011/11/11