On Sat, Mar 05, 2011 at 07:44:28PM +0100, Pascal Stumpf wrote: > 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. >
so, can anyone clarify what -g orignally did, and whether the wording is ok? jmc
