[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#10016: ls -lk is wrong
From: |
Eric Blake |
Subject: |
bug#10016: ls -lk is wrong |
Date: |
Fri, 11 Nov 2011 11:36:46 -0700 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:7.0.1) Gecko/20110930 Thunderbird/7.0.1 |
On 11/11/2011 11:30 AM, Jim Meyering wrote:
>> +++ b/src/ls.c
>> @@ -3030,9 +3030,7 @@ gobble_file (char const *name, enum filetype type,
>> ino_t inode,
>> {
>> char buf[LONGEST_HUMAN_READABLE + 1];
>> uintmax_t size = unsigned_file_size (f->stat.st_size);
>> - int len = mbswidth (human_readable (size, buf,
>> human_output_opts,
>> - 1,
>> file_output_block_size),
>> - 0);
>> + int len = mbswidth (human_readable (size, buf, 0, 1, 1), 0);
>
> I don't like the idea of printing a byte count there when
> --block-size=... takes effect. Does anyone else have an opinion?
Are you proposing that --block-size keep the current behavior, and that
-k no longer be a synonym for --block-size=1k but instead becomes a new
long option?
Makes sense to me - POSIX didn't standardize -k until 2008, which was
long after coreutils had been implementing --block-size; I'm worried
that changing the behavior of --block-size may have negative effects,
whereas changing the behavior of -k to match POSIX is justifiable.
>
> Regardless, -k's descriptions will have to be fixed, too.
Agreed.
--
Eric Blake address@hidden +1-801-349-2682
Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
- bug#10016: ls -lk is wrong, Alan Curry, 2011/11/10
- bug#10016: ls -lk is wrong, Eric Blake, 2011/11/10
- bug#10016: ls -lk is wrong,
Eric Blake <=
- bug#10016: ls -lk is wrong, Jim Meyering, 2011/11/11
- bug#10016: ls -lk is wrong, Paul Eggert, 2011/11/11
- bug#10016: ls -lk is wrong, Eric Blake, 2011/11/11
- bug#10016: ls -lk is wrong, Paul Eggert, 2011/11/11
- bug#10016: ls -lk is wrong, Jim Meyering, 2011/11/11
- bug#10016: ls -lk is wrong, Paul Eggert, 2011/11/12
- bug#9939: bug#10016: ls -lk is wrong, Jim Meyering, 2011/11/12
- bug#10016: ls -lk is wrong, Pádraig Brady, 2011/11/11