[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 13:06:14 -0800 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:7.0.1) Gecko/20110929 Thunderbird/7.0.1 |
The long option shouldn't be --kilobyte, since ls -k means
1024 not 1000. So I suppose it should be --kibibyte.
It's a little tricky, since -k means --block-size=1K
for df and du as well, and I assume this won't change,
since df -k and du -k conform to POSIX. (Surely there's
no need to add --kibibyte to du and df -- why should
we make df and du more confusing merely because
ls must be more confusing? :-).
So does the following sound plausible?
Add --kibibyte to 'ls', make it equivalent to -k, change
-k so that it conforms to POSIX, and have --block-size
override -k. But leave df and du alone
- bug#10016: ls -lk is wrong, (continued)
- 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
- bug#10016: ls -lk is wrong,
Paul Eggert <=
- 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