Subject: bug#10016: ls -lk is wrong

From: Paul Eggert <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 11:25:40 -0800

On 11/11/2011 10:36 AM, Eric Blake wrote:
> Are you proposing that --block-size keep the current behavior, and that
> -k no longer be a synonym for --block-size=1k but instead becomes a new
> long option?
>
> Makes sense to me

That sort of thing makes sense to me too.
I assume --block-size should silently override -k
if both options are specified (in either order)?
Does -k need a long-named option?