On 11/10/2011 04:35 PM, Alan Curry wrote:
I mentioned this already in the bug#9939 thread, but nobody replied and it's
really a separate issue so here's an independent report.
This behavior:
$ 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
is awful. -k should not have any effect on the ls -l field that reports
st_size. It is only supposed to possibly affect the reporting of st_blocks
by -s and the "total" line at the start of a full directory listing.
I just re-read POSIX, and it looks like you are correct:
http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/ls.html
-k
Set the block size for the -s option and the per-directory block
count written for the -l, -n, -s, [XSI] [Option Start] -g, and -o
[Option End] options (see the STDOUT section) to 1024 bytes.
POSIX has no mention of -k affecting the file size output, just the
initial column for -s and the per-directory summary on "total" lines.
I won't make any claims about what --block-size should do, but -k comes from
BSD and it should act like BSD.
It's not so much what BSD says, but what POSIX specifies, that matters
here - I think you've made a pretty clear case that coreutils has a bug.
--
Eric Blake [email protected] +1-801-349-2682
Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org
