On 16/09/10 23:34, Paul Eggert wrote:
On 09/16/10 11:21, Eric Blake wrote:
document -m, with --block-size=M as the long-option spelling
add -g, with --block-size=G as the long-option spelling
This doesn't sound like a good idea. Multi-terabyte disks
are already here, and df -t is already
Hi,
On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 09:56:57AM +0100, Pádraig Brady wrote:
On 16/09/10 23:34, Paul Eggert wrote:
If we're going to make incompatible changes, I suggest that
we solve the problem once and for all, by having df choose
the default blocksize dynamically, based on the size of the
Pádraig Brady p...@draigbrady.com writes:
On 16/09/10 23:34, Paul Eggert wrote:
If we're going to make incompatible changes, I suggest that
we solve the problem once and for all, by having df choose
the default blocksize dynamically, based on the size of the
output line describing the
On 16/09/10 12:59, Petr Pisar wrote:
Hello,
I found `df' utility from coreutils-8.5 does not describe `-m' option that is
mentioned in info page and the program accepts it.
-- Petr
-m was deprecated in 2001
http://git.savannah.gnu.org/gitweb/?p=coreutils.git;a=commit;h=d1772031
It is not
On 09/16/2010 09:20 AM, Pádraig Brady wrote:
On 16/09/10 12:59, Petr Pisar wrote:
Hello,
I found `df' utility from coreutils-8.5 does not describe `-m' option that is
mentioned in info page and the program accepts it.
-- Petr
-m was deprecated in 2001
On 09/16/10 11:21, Eric Blake wrote:
document -m, with --block-size=M as the long-option spelling
add -g, with --block-size=G as the long-option spelling
This doesn't sound like a good idea. Multi-terabyte disks
are already here, and df -t is already taken. Also,
df -g already means something
