[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#10016: ls -lk is wrong
From: |
Paul Eggert |
Subject: |
bug#10016: ls -lk is wrong |
Date: |
Fri, 11 Nov 2011 10:49:34 -0800 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:7.0.1) Gecko/20110929 Thunderbird/7.0.1 |
On 11/11/2011 10:30 AM, Jim Meyering wrote:
> I don't like the idea of printing a byte count there when
> --block-size=... takes effect. Does anyone else have an opinion?
Sorry, I've lost context. Are you talking about
the output of "ls -ls --block-size=1"?
Currently it starts with something like
"total 8642560", and then each line looks something
like this:
40960 -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 38484 2011-02-23 05:22 foo
where the "8642560", the "40960", and the "38484"
are all byte counts. Which of these three numbers are
you thinking should not be a byte count when the block
size is 1? And how should the --si and -h options affect
that number's display?
- 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, 2011/11/11
- 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