bug#10016: ls -lk is wrong

[Jim Meyering]

Eric Blake wrote:

> 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?

Precisely.