Re: ls -s but sorted

[James Youngman]

On Fri, Aug 8, 2008 at 4:50 AM,  <address@hidden> wrote:
> ls man page says
>       -s, --size
>              print the size of each file, in blocks
>
>       -S     sort by file size
> but to sort by block size (not always the same as file size due to
> files with holes), one must do
> ls -s|sort -n

I agree.

~/tmp$ find . -printf '%7S %10s %4b %p\n'
      1       4096    8 .
2.4e-05  512000512   24 ./foo
      1      32768   64 ./nohole
   1.04     102400  208 ./bigger-nohole
~/tmp$ ls -lhs
total 148K
104K -rw-r--r-- 1 james james 100K 2008-08-08 08:25 bigger-nohole
 12K -rw-r--r-- 1 james james 489M 2008-08-08 08:18 foo
 32K -rw-r--r-- 1 james james  32K 2008-08-08 08:19 nohole
~/tmp$ ls -s1S
total 148
 12 foo
104 bigger-nohole
 32 nohole
~/tmp$ ls -s1Sl
total 148
 12 -rw-r--r-- 1 james james 512000512 2008-08-08 08:18 foo
104 -rw-r--r-- 1 james james    102400 2008-08-08 08:25 bigger-nohole
 32 -rw-r--r-- 1 james james     32768 2008-08-08 08:19 nohole

So from the above it looks like "ls" is doing just what the
documentation says it should.   What are you suggesting should be
changed?

James.