bug#49716: no -print0 for ls?

[Paul Eggert]

On 7/25/21 10:10 AM, Pádraig Brady wrote:
> Right we should be especially careful of short options with ls.
> A long only option should suffice

OK, I installed the attached to implement 'ls --null'. (The last patch 
is the actual change; the other patches are cleanups.) This addresses 
the problem raised in the bug report.

Is there any pattern as to why some coreutils programs have a --null 
option and others have a --zero option? The two options seem to mean the 
same thing. Should we work toward standardizing on one spelling or the 
other (of course maintaining backward compatibility).

0001-env-fix-usage-typo.patch
Description: Text Data

0002-maint-fix-white-space.patch
Description: Text Data

0003-build-update-gnulib-submodule-to-latest.patch
Description: Text Data

0004-ls-simplify-sprintf-usage.patch
Description: Text Data

0005-ls-demacroize.patch
Description: Text Data

0006-ls-port-to-wider-off_t-uid_t-gid_t.patch
Description: Text Data

0007-ls-add-null-option-Bug-49716.patch
Description: Text Data