[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: |
Fri, 11 Nov 2011 17:53:50 -0500 (GMT+5) |
Jim Meyering writes:
>
> I'm thinking of making -k comply, but letting any block-size
> specification (via --block-size= or an envvar) override that
> to give the behavior we've seen for the last 9 years.
>
Wow, look what I stirred up.
If it's been like this for 9 years, it's been broken for 9 years. As I said
originally, BSD is the standard that matters here. It doesn't matter when or
even whether POSIX blessed the -k option.
Everywhere except GNU, this is simple. The size field of the ls -l output is
not defined in terms of blocks, so the block size setting doesn't affect it.
Numbers derived from st_blocks are reported in units of blocks, and others
aren't.
If you're going to define --block-size to have this effect, then you really
need to document it as being an option that does 2 separate things:
1. sets the size of a block
2. alters the definition of the -l format
--
Alan Curry
- 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, 2011/11/11
- 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