Paul Eggert wrote: > On 11/11/2011 10:30 AM, Jim Meyering wrote: >> I don't like the idea of printing a byte count there when >> --block-size=... takes effect. Does anyone else have an opinion? > Sorry, I've lost context. Are you talking about > the output of "ls -ls --block-size=1"? > Currently it starts with something like > "total 8642560", and then each line looks something > like this: > > 40960 -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 38484 2011-02-23 05:22 foo > > where the "8642560", the "40960", and the "38484" > are all byte counts. Which of these three numbers are > you thinking should not be a byte count when the block > size is 1? And how should the --si and -h options affect > that number's display?
I'm talking only about the st.st_size number, your 38484 above, when using -k with a long-listing option like -l, -o or -g. POSIX requires a byte-count (as you get with --block-size=1), but we print a block count. I'm thinking of making -k comply, but letting any block-size specification (via --block-size= or an envvar) override that to give the behavior we've seen for the last 9 years.
