bug#22696: ls output changes considered unacceptable

On 16/02/16 12:41, Paul Eggert wrote: > On 02/16/2016 10:48 AM, Ruediger Meier wrote: > >> What about readlink, basename, mktemp ... Why they don't have a >> terminal mode too? > > If a command is commonly used at the top level, it probably should do > something like 'ls' does, yes. The

bug#22696: ls output changes considered unacceptable

On 17 Feb 2016 01:41, isabella parakiss wrote: > On 2/17/16, Ruediger Meier wrote: > > As already said in practice it is already configurable by different kind > > of distro-specific techniques or shell aliases. For example openSUSE > > has envvar LS_OPTIONS. Maybe we could

bug#22696: ls output changes considered unacceptable

On 2/17/16, Ruediger Meier wrote: > As already said in practice it is already configurable by different kind > of distro-specific techniques or shell aliases. For example openSUSE > has envvar LS_OPTIONS. Maybe we could support such LS_OPTIONS variable > officially. Please no.

bug#22696: ls output changes considered unacceptable

On 02/16/2016 04:09 PM, Ruediger Meier wrote: > On Tuesday 16 February 2016, Eric Blake wrote: >> On 02/16/2016 03:13 PM, Ruediger Meier wrote: >>> Do you really think that this ls output is clear to a newbie? >>> $ ls >>> 'a?b' 'a'$'\n''b' axb c 'd e' >> >> A newbie isn't going to create a

bug#22696: ls output changes considered unacceptable

On Tuesday 16 February 2016, Assaf Gordon wrote: > Hello all, > > Regarding the recent change of default-quoting style, > what do you think about the attached patch, > enabling to set the default style during './configure' ? > > advanced users who prefer the previous behavior (but don't want to >

bug#22696: ls output changes considered unacceptable

On Tuesday 16 February 2016, Paul Eggert wrote: > On 02/16/2016 10:48 AM, Ruediger Meier wrote: > > If the file name _is_ readable at all, then it was printed in a > > more readable way. > > Sorry, I'm not following. What do you mean by "readable at all"? I've ment printable should be just

bug#22696: ls output changes considered unacceptable

On Tuesday 16 February 2016, Eric Blake wrote: > On 02/16/2016 03:13 PM, Ruediger Meier wrote: > > Do you really think that this ls output is clear to a newbie? > > $ ls > > 'a?b' 'a'$'\n''b' axb c 'd e' > > A newbie isn't going to create a file with a newline in it; and the > others seem

bug#22696: ls output changes considered unacceptable

On 02/16/2016 03:13 PM, Ruediger Meier wrote: > > Do you really think that this ls output is clear to a newbie? > $ ls > 'a?b' 'a'$'\n''b' axb c 'd e' A newbie isn't going to create a file with a newline in it; and the others seem reasonable to me. Maybe we could make an effort to quote as

bug#22696: ls output changes considered unacceptable

On 02/16/2016 02:29 PM, Assaf Gordon wrote: Regarding the recent change of default-quoting style, what do you think about the attached patch, enabling to set the default style during './configure' ? We should endeavor to avoid behavior forks like that. Besides, such a change would violate

bug#22696: ls output changes considered unacceptable

Hello all, Regarding the recent change of default-quoting style, what do you think about the attached patch, enabling to set the default style during './configure' ? advanced users who prefer the previous behavior (but don't want to use a new alias or add QUOTING_STYLE envvar) can build their

bug#22696: ls output changes considered unacceptable

On Tuesday 16 February 2016, Jon Stanley wrote: > On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 1:48 PM, Ruediger Meier wrote: > > No! IMO Newbies should learn (most painful as possible!) that > > non-ascii filenames sucks. :) Maybe ls shouldn't show them at all > > by default ;) > > I normally lurk

bug#22696: ls output changes considered unacceptable

On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 1:48 PM, Ruediger Meier wrote: > No! IMO Newbies should learn (most painful as possible!) that non-ascii > filenames sucks. :) Maybe ls shouldn't show them at all by default ;) I normally lurk on this list, but this leads me to *vehemently* disagree.

bug#22696: ls output changes considered unacceptable

On 02/16/2016 10:48 AM, Ruediger Meier wrote: If the file name _is_ readable at all, then it was printed in a more readable way. Sorry, I'm not following. What do you mean by "readable at all"? Other tools like less, more, texteditor, webbrowser don't print non-printable chars. Why ls? If

bug#22696: ls output changes considered unacceptable

On Tuesday 16 February 2016, Paul Eggert wrote: > On 02/16/2016 08:58 AM, Ruediger Meier wrote: > > Terminal output should be human readable not machine readable. > > Sure, but under the old way of doing things, terminal output *wasn't* > human-readable. For example: If the file name _is_

bug#22698: ls output changes considered unacceptable

Hello, There are some software changes that are simple accidents resulting in bugs; folks find them, fix them, and all is well. Then there are intentional changes, which don't affect functionality, but instead change _essential aesthetics_. These are much more alarming issues, the kind of issues

bug#22696: ls output changes considered unacceptable

tag 22696 notabug invalid thanks bummer - accidentally opened this one by CCing bug-coreutils during reply-all. Let's keep this on the main list, thus closing here. Have a nice day, Berny

bug#22696: ls output changes considered unacceptable

On 02/16/2016 11:50 AM, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote: And, when such a change is made in software considered "core", by a single individual unilaterally without extremely wide consultation of the larger community, it is clear that a grave an unacceptable thing has happened. We already heard a few