[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

bug#10016: ls -lk is wrong

From: Pádraig Brady
Subject: bug#10016: ls -lk is wrong
Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2011 00:56:29 +0000
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:6.0) Gecko/20110816 Thunderbird/6.0

On 11/11/2011 09:06 PM, Paul Eggert wrote:
> 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

I'm reluctant to add a new option which no one will really use.
But I concur, given the hits from:


-k really isn't used in that context, and replacing --block with -k
in the above query returns no hits.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]