Hi, Thor. Do you remember what was the original intention behind ls -O?
On Fri, Oct 11, 2024 at 13:16:32 +0200, tlaro...@kergis.com wrote: > On Fri, Oct 11, 2024 at 05:35:11AM +0300, Valery Ushakov wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 10, 2024 at 21:37:15 +0200, tlaro...@kergis.com wrote: > > > > > The -O (not a POSIX one) flag seems incorrectly described in the manual > > > page. > > > > > > What it does (from a cursory look at the sources, matching the result > > > of testing), is simply not displaying a supplementary information > > > about the directory traversed when going recursive. > > > > > > It does not output only leaf (filenames not directory). This is only > > > the "headline": "\ndir:\n" that is not displayed. > > > > > > Just try: > > > > > > $ ls -OF > > > > > > for example (and combine with -R). > > > > > > What was the intention of the flag? To have an output with just the > > > names (including directories) without the formatting about the newline > > > and the dir? > > > > revision 1.71 > > date: 2014-02-20 22:56:36 +0400; author: christos; state: Exp; lines: > > +18 -8; > > Add -O (only leaf files) and -P (print full path), from tls@ > > > > Seems buggy too > > > > $ mkdir -p 1/2/3/4 > > $ touch 1/2/200 > > $ find . > > . > > ./1 > > ./1/2 > > ./1/2/3 > > ./1/2/3/4 > > ./1/2/200 > > $ ls -RPO > > ./1 > > ./1/2 > > ./1/2/200./1/2/3 > > ./1/2/3/4 > > > > Can you file a PR, please? TIA. > > > > Done: bin/58740 > > And for me the solution is to suppress the flag altogether---what > the manpage says it is supposed to do can be done with find(1). -uwe
