On Sat, Mar 05, 2011 at 03:59:16PM +0000, Jason McIntyre wrote: > On Sat, Mar 05, 2011 at 03:21:00PM +0100, Pascal Stumpf wrote: > > ls(1) still has the old semantics for -g in one spot. > > > > Index: ls.1 > > =================================================================== > > RCS file: /cvs/src/bin/ls/ls.1,v > > retrieving revision 1.63 > > diff -u -r1.63 ls.1 > > --- ls.1 4 Mar 2011 21:03:19 -0000 1.63 > > +++ ls.1 5 Mar 2011 14:17:15 -0000 > > @@ -275,9 +275,9 @@ > > is displayed for each file: > > mode, > > number of links, > > -owner, > > -group (though not for > > +owner (though not for > > .Fl g ) , > > +group, > > size in bytes, > > time of last modification > > .Pq Dq mmm dd HH:MM , > > > > fixed, thanks. but i'm confused - if originally -g requested group info > "be included", why did the man page say (of group info) "though not for > -g"? should that passage read "excluded" instead? anyone know?
Sorry -- after checking the commit logs it apparently got introduced right after -g was made POSIX-compliant (r1.49). It's neither correct for traditional BSD nor POSIX behaviour.
