Re: Showing actual filesizes with ls

[Paul Eggert]

"Joakim Rosqvist (JRO.SE)" <address@hidden> writes:

> I would like to see a new option to ls that works like --size (showing
> filenames and sizes in as many columns as will fit onscreen), but shows
> filesize instead of disk usage.

Isn't this need fairly specialized?  Couldn't you implement it
with a script?

> what would be the best size to show for a symlink: the size of the
> link or the size of the file referred to?

As Jim mentioned that should be controlled by whether the link is
dereferenced.

Also, what would ls show for files that are neither regular files nor
symlinks?  E.g., what "size" would it show for character devices?

> What would be the best default blocksize (currently, I'm using
> file_output_block_size which is 1).

That sounds best to me; in effect, you'd be outputting the same thing
"ls -l" outputs, which is simpler to explain.