GNU bug report logs - #10016
ls -lk is wrong

Previous Next

Package: coreutils;

Reported by: "Alan Curry" <pacman-cu <at> kosh.dhis.org>

Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 00:04:01 UTC

Severity: normal

Done: Paul Eggert <eggert <at> cs.ucla.edu>

Bug is archived. No further changes may be made.

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: Eric Blake <eblake <at> redhat.com>
To: Paul Eggert <eggert <at> cs.ucla.edu>
Cc: 10016 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Jim Meyering <jim <at> meyering.net>, Alan Curry <pacman-cu <at> kosh.dhis.org>
Subject: bug#10016: ls -lk is wrong
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 13:27:01 -0700

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
On 11/11/2011 12:25 PM, Paul Eggert wrote:
> 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?

GNU Coding Standards request that all short options have a corresponding
long option; by breaking the tie between -k and --block-size, we are
breaking that convention unless we also add a new long option for the
new meaning of -k.

-- 
Eric Blake   eblake <at> redhat.com    +1-801-349-2682
Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org


[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, attachment)]
This bug report was last modified 13 years and 254 days ago.

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.