On 11/11/2011 11:30 AM, Jim Meyering wrote:
>> +++ b/src/ls.c
>> @@ -3030,9 +3030,7 @@ gobble_file (char const *name, enum filetype type,
>> ino_t inode,
>> {
>> char buf[LONGEST_HUMAN_READABLE + 1];
>> uintmax_t size = unsigned_file_size (f->stat.st_size);
>> - int len = mbswidth (human_readable (size, buf,
>> human_output_opts,
>> - 1,
>> file_output_block_size),
>> - 0);
>> + int len = mbswidth (human_readable (size, buf, 0, 1, 1), 0);
>
> I don't like the idea of printing a byte count there when
> --block-size=... takes effect. Does anyone else have an opinion?Are you proposing that --block-size keep the current behavior, and that -k no longer be a synonym for --block-size=1k but instead becomes a new long option? Makes sense to me - POSIX didn't standardize -k until 2008, which was long after coreutils had been implementing --block-size; I'm worried that changing the behavior of --block-size may have negative effects, whereas changing the behavior of -k to match POSIX is justifiable. > > Regardless, -k's descriptions will have to be fixed, too. Agreed. -- Eric Blake [email protected] +1-801-349-2682 Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
