On 09/20/2012 03:08 AM, Pádraig Brady wrote: > On 09/18/2012 11:54 AM, Bernhard Voelker wrote: >> So as -P does nothing, shouldn't df print a warning that >> it disregards it when -i is in effect? > > Well as it used to do something (ensure single lines) > so I was going to suggest not printing a warning, > for a while at least. Though I now notice that BSD also > implements -i, and that adds the inodes columns _in addition_ > to the blocks columns. So it's more likely that users > may be confused about this combination, so I guess a warning > is warranted. Note we couldn't change to the BSD -i behavior > for backward compat reasons.
So the BSDs did it actually better for the -i ... maybe we can lap them with --output again ;-) >> I thought that I could get rid of the mashing up of the scale >> factor (human_output_opts, output_block_size) and df's main >> modes DEFAULT_MODE, INODES_MODE, POSIX_MODE and HUMAN_MODE) >> somehow ... because the same question will arise again with >> 'df -P --out=...' ;-/ >> IMHO the cleanest solution would be to make the main modes >> -i, -p and the new --o mutually exclusive. > > Yes --o should be mutually exclusive with the -i and -P options. Thanks. Ok, we'll see how it all fits together. I was planning to have --o without any parameters to print all available fields (which is already working here, just the parsing for --o=<fields> is missing). Have a nice day, Berny
