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

From: Eric Blake <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 04 Jun 2013 13:40:36 -0600

On 06/02/2013 12:47 PM, Paul Eggert wrote:
> On 06/01/2013 02:54 PM, Linda Walsh wrote:
>> ... removing features that exceeded posix
> 
> As I explained to you in my previous message, no features
> were removed.  Merely the option syntax was changed.
> 
>> What switch(es) are supposed to be used to choose what units to display
>> sizes on the long listing?
> 
> The --block-size option.  See:
> 
> http://www.gnu.org/software/coreutils/manual/coreutils.html#Block-size
> 
> Coreutils already has all the features that you asked for
> in your email.

I just noticed that we DO have a doc bug; in 'info coreutils "Block
size"', we incorrectly claim:

>> Block size defaults can be overridden by an explicit
>> `--block-size=SIZE' option.  The `-k' option is equivalent to
>> `--block-size=1K', which is the default unless the `POSIXLY_CORRECT'
>> environment variable is set. 

which, while still true for du and df, is now false for ls.

-- 
Eric Blake   eblake redhat com    +1-919-301-3266
Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org