Subject: Re: bug#10016: ls -lk is wrong

From: Paul Eggert <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 10:49:34 -0800

On 11/11/2011 10:30 AM, Jim Meyering wrote:
> I don't like the idea of printing a byte count there when
> --block-size=... takes effect.  Does anyone else have an opinion?
Sorry, I've lost context.  Are you talking about
the output of "ls -ls --block-size=1"?
Currently it starts with something like
"total 8642560", and then each line looks something
like this:

40960 -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 38484 2011-02-23 05:22 foo

where the "8642560", the "40960", and the "38484"
are all byte counts.  Which of these three numbers are
you thinking should not be a byte count when the block
size is 1?  And how should the --si and -h options affect
that number's display?