Subject: bug#14525: ls -k produced no size, ls -lk lists in bytes? What's up w/k?

From: Paul Eggert <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 01 Jun 2013 14:35:24 -0700

On 06/01/2013 09:20 AM, Linda A. Walsh wrote:
> 	What replaced it?
> 
> 	I mean it doesn't do something *different*, it just ignores it.

I'm not sure what behavior you're asking for, but if you want
the old behavior of -k, you can use the --block-size=1KiB
option.  So no functionality was lost.

-k (and --block-size=1KiB) affects only the block size of
displayed values; it doesn't affect the choice of which
values to display.