[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#9939: Problems with the SIZE description in man pages for <ls> and <
From: |
abdallah clark |
Subject: |
bug#9939: Problems with the SIZE description in man pages for <ls> and <du> |
Date: |
Wed, 9 Nov 2011 05:37:59 -0600 |
Dear Paul,
I hope that you and your family are well. I'm doing fine and feeling
like I'm making better progress on a few levels lately. Also, I found
a set of simple examples for the tee command in a very old book that
were quite useful. I was reading it for shell programming and it's
index didn't even list "tee" at all, but they had four pages using
it. Thank God for "serendipity!"
I was wondering if you received my very detailed account of the issues
I found with the <ls -l --block-size=SIZE> command. It's been about a
week since I sent it, so I wasn't sure what was happening.
I saved it as a text file also, so it would be easy to re-send it to
you if necessary.
I am very curious to see whether my understanding of the option is the
case, or if there really are errors/bugs in it.
I await your acknowledgement of that e-mail. Thanks again for your
consideration.
All the best to you and yours,
Abdallah Clark
On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 11:01 AM, Paul Eggert <address@hidden> wrote:
> On 11/02/11 03:40, abdallah clark wrote:
>
>> the units are not
>> consistent with the ISO/SI units-- K and M are in units of 1000, not
>> 1024, because they are part of the metric system, not the binary
>> system.
>
> coreutils is supporting three notations here: SI-ish,
> IEC 60027-2 / ISO/IEC 80000-13:2008, and traditional Unix.
> So:
>
> MB means 1000*1000 bytes. This is like SI, except SI doesn't have "B".
> MiB means 1024*1024 bytes. This is IEC 60027-2 and ISO/IEC 80000-13:2008.
> M means MiB. This is traditional Unix.
>
> See <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_prefix> for more info.
> (coreutils cannot use plain SI, since SI doesn't specify
> an abbreviation for "byte".)
>
>> it is just too awkwardly
>> written to be understood on the first reading.
>
> Suggestions for improved wording are welcome. We'd like it to be
> short, of course.
>
>> Also, the statement "Mandatory arguments to long options are mandatory
>> for short options too." puzzles me
>
> Yes, I don't like that sentence either. Suggestions for
> improvement are welcome here, too. Maybe we should just get
> rid of it? I expect it causes more confusion than it cures.
>
- bug#9939: Problems with the SIZE description in man pages for <ls> and <du>, abdallah clark, 2011/11/02
- bug#9939: Problems with the SIZE description in man pages for <ls> and <du>, Pádraig Brady, 2011/11/02
- bug#9939: Problems with the SIZE description in man pages for <ls> and <du>, Paul Eggert, 2011/11/02
- bug#9939: Problems with the SIZE description in man pages for <ls> and <du>,
abdallah clark <=
- bug#9939: Problems with the SIZE description in man pages for <ls> and <du>, Paul Eggert, 2011/11/09
- bug#9939: Problems with the SIZE description in man pages for <ls> and <du>, abdallah clark, 2011/11/09
- bug#9939: Problems with the SIZE description in man pages for <ls> and <du>, Paul Eggert, 2011/11/09
- bug#9939: Problems with the SIZE description in man pages for <ls> and <du>, abdallah clark, 2011/11/10
- bug#9939: Problems with the SIZE description in man pages for <ls> and <du>, Jim Meyering, 2011/11/10
- bug#9939: Problems with the SIZE description in man pages for <ls> and <du>, Bob Proulx, 2011/11/10
- bug#9939: Problems with the SIZE description in man pages for <ls> and <du>, abdallah clark, 2011/11/10
- bug#9939: Problems with the SIZE description in man pages for <ls> and <du>, Eric Blake, 2011/11/10
- bug#9939: Problems with the SIZE description in man pages for <ls> and <du>, Eric Blake, 2011/11/10
- bug#9939: Problems with the SIZE description in man pages for <ls> and <du>, Paul Eggert, 2011/11/10