[Top][All Lists]

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

bug#49716: no -print0 for ls?

From: Paul Eggert
Subject: bug#49716: no -print0 for ls?
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2021 01:05:50 -0700
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.11.0

On 7/25/21 10:10 AM, Pádraig Brady wrote:
Right we should be especially careful of short options with ls.
A long only option should suffice

OK, I installed the attached to implement 'ls --null'. (The last patch is the actual change; the other patches are cleanups.) This addresses the problem raised in the bug report.

Is there any pattern as to why some coreutils programs have a --null option and others have a --zero option? The two options seem to mean the same thing. Should we work toward standardizing on one spelling or the other (of course maintaining backward compatibility).

Attachment: 0001-env-fix-usage-typo.patch
Description: Text Data

Attachment: 0002-maint-fix-white-space.patch
Description: Text Data

Attachment: 0003-build-update-gnulib-submodule-to-latest.patch
Description: Text Data

Attachment: 0004-ls-simplify-sprintf-usage.patch
Description: Text Data

Attachment: 0005-ls-demacroize.patch
Description: Text Data

Attachment: 0006-ls-port-to-wider-off_t-uid_t-gid_t.patch
Description: Text Data

Attachment: 0007-ls-add-null-option-Bug-49716.patch
Description: Text Data

reply via email to

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