abdallah clark writes: > > I was wondering if you received my very detailed account of the issues > I found with the <ls -l --block-size=3DSIZE> command. It's been about a > week since I sent it, so I wasn't sure what was happening.
I looked over that message and prepared a reply explaining the things that you had misunderstood. Then I tried running your examples and realized that I didn't understand some of them either. According to my understanding, several of the behaviors you observed are bugs. So I deleted my reply and decided to wait along with you for someone else to explain it all. Since that hasn't happened yet, I'll go ahead and cover the main point: You're interested in altering the block size used in the ls output, but you haven't investigated what portions of the output are affected by block size. There are 3 instances of the word "block" in ls(1). 2 of them are in the description of the options that change the block size: --block-size and -k. The 3rd instance is under the only option that actually makes use of the block size: -s. A quick demonstration of -k working. First I have to set POSIXLY_CORRECT because the default block size when not in POSIXLY_CORRECT mode is already 1K, so -k is normally a no-op. $ POSIXLY_CORRECT=1 ; export POSIXLY_CORRECT $ ls -s /bin/ls 224 /bin/ls $ ls -sk /bin/ls 112 /bin/ls Since the -l output is not defined in terms of block size, ls -l and ls -lk will produce exactly the same output. $ ls -l /bin/ls -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 107124 Feb 8 2011 /bin/ls $ ls -lk /bin/ls -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 105 Feb 8 2011 /bin/ls Oops. Well, I know they used to produce the same output. And I think they still should and this is a bug. Anyone? > > On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 11:01 AM, Paul Eggert <[email protected]> wrote: [snip] Quote what you're replying to, and put your reply in logical order with it. -- Alan Curry
