[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#10016: ls -lk is wrong
|
From: |
Paul Eggert |
|
Subject: |
bug#10016: ls -lk is wrong |
|
Date: |
Fri, 11 Nov 2011 11:25:40 -0800 |
|
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:7.0.1) Gecko/20110929 Thunderbird/7.0.1 |
On 11/11/2011 10:36 AM, Eric Blake wrote:
> Are you proposing that --block-size keep the current behavior, and that
> -k no longer be a synonym for --block-size=1k but instead becomes a new
> long option?
>
> Makes sense to me
That sort of thing makes sense to me too.
I assume --block-size should silently override -k
if both options are specified (in either order)?
Does -k need a long-named option?
- bug#10016: ls -lk is wrong, Alan Curry, 2011/11/10
- 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 <=
- bug#10016: ls -lk is wrong, Eric Blake, 2011/11/11
- bug#10016: ls -lk is wrong, Paul Eggert, 2011/11/11
- bug#10016: ls -lk is wrong, Jim Meyering, 2011/11/11
- bug#10016: ls -lk is wrong, Paul Eggert, 2011/11/12
- bug#9939: bug#10016: ls -lk is wrong, Jim Meyering, 2011/11/12
- bug#10016: ls -lk is wrong, Pádraig Brady, 2011/11/11