Subject: bug#10016: ls -lk is wrong

From: Jim Meyering <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 22:10:44 +0100

Paul Eggert wrote:
> The long option shouldn't be --kilobyte, since ls -k means
> 1024 not 1000.  So I suppose it should be --kibibyte.
>
> It's a little tricky, since -k means --block-size=1K
> for df and du as well, and I assume this won't change,
> since df -k and du -k conform to POSIX. (Surely there's
> no need to add --kibibyte to du and df -- why should
> we make df and du more confusing merely because
> ls must be more confusing? :-).
>
> So does the following sound plausible?
>
> Add --kibibyte to 'ls', make it equivalent to -k, change
> -k so that it conforms to POSIX, and have --block-size
> override -k.  But leave df and du alone

That sounds right.
Do you feel like writing the patch?