On 07/26/2012 06:11 PM, Pádraig Brady wrote:
> On 07/26/2012 04:43 PM, Bernhard Voelker wrote:
>> On 07/26/2012 04:23 PM, Pádraig Brady wrote:
>>> So a full --output list supported by df could be
>>> FSTYPE,SOURCE,TARGET,SIZE,USED,AVAIL,FREEPCT
Today, there's no FREEPCT, but USEDPCT.
I'd leave that.
> Oh right the last 4 items above should also have I... variants
> to cater for inodes.
What about ISIZE, IUSED, IAVAIL and IUSEDPCT?
>> We could for the first time have blocks and inodes statistics
>> in one command:
>
> Good point, but that could be allowed too with --output
Right.
>> And some directives could have mixed SIZE modifiers, e.g.
>>
>> %{SIZE}u used blocks with SIZE like KMGTPEZY.
>> %{SIZE}i inode number
>>
>> df --format="%Tt %Gu %Ki %m"
>
> T overlaps, but I see what you mean.
The SIZE could be in {}, e.g. "%{T}t".
How could we do this with --ouput?
Maybe something like:
df --output=SIZE/M,IFREE/K,USED/1024,TARGET
> Would you still want to apply mbsalign to all fields
> but the last when using a specific format like this?
No, the idea was to create format specifiers for that like
e.g. "%-FIELD" (left-aligned) and "%+FIELD" (right-aligned),
and to have the traditional formats be a certain combination
of it.
This would need a lot of checking ... e.g. if a format string
contained a '+' or a '-', then what should happen with the
other fields? Error? Default alignment per field? Centered?
... --format is more flexible and much more complex.
> 60:40 for --output as ordering/selection is needed by some
> 40:60 against --printf as detailed formatting is neede by few
You see, I'm still jumping between --output and --format, now
also 60:40 pro --output.
What do the others think?
Have a nice day,
Berny
