"Alfred M. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ... > > Mmm... Maybe there is even a smallish bug in POSIX, from the > > example section (ls -laRF): > > > > -rwxr--r-- 1 hlj prog 572 Jul 4 12:07 foo* > > > > That doesn't corespond with the above rule for -l. Should this > > be reported to the OpenGroup? > > What part doesn't correspond? > > One (two for the file permission and link count) space between each > field. Where as the example has more then one/two spaces between each > field. > > "%s %u %s %s %u %s %s\n", <file mode>, <number of links>, > <owner name>, <group name>, <number of bytes in the file>, > <date and time>, <pathname>
I don't remember the rationale, but seem to recall that there was no restriction on field widths, so using %2d (as might have been done for the sample line's link count) would be conforming. Besides, some variance is required if you want to make varying-length user names align in columns. Same with link counts of 1 and 99. _______________________________________________ Bug-coreutils mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-coreutils
