GNU bug report logs - #15308
ls -lk reports bytes, not kibytes

Previous Next

To add a comment to this bug, you must first unarchive it, by sending
a message to control AT debbugs.gnu.org, with unarchive 15308 in the body.
You can then email your comments to 15308 AT debbugs.gnu.org in the normal way.

Toggle the display of automated, internal messages from the tracker.

Message #5 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Bruce Dubbs <bruce.dubbs <at> gmail.com>
To: bug-coreutils <at> gnu.org
Subject: ls -lk reports bytes, not kibytes
Date: Sun, 08 Sep 2013 11:15:09 -0500

Coreutils 8.21

'ls -lk file'            gives bytes, not kibytes
'ls -l --kibibytes file' gives bytes, not kibytes

'ls -l --block-size=1024 file' gives the proper response

Checking back a little, I have the same problem with Coreutils-8.17.

  -- Bruce Dubbs
     linuxfromscratch.org

Message #8 received at 15308 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Bernhard Voelker <mail <at> bernhard-voelker.de>
To: Bruce Dubbs <bruce.dubbs <at> gmail.com>
Cc: 15308 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#15308: ls -lk reports bytes, not kibytes
Date: Sun, 08 Sep 2013 18:49:20 +0200

On 09/08/2013 06:15 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Coreutils 8.21
> 
> 'ls -lk file'            gives bytes, not kibytes
> 'ls -l --kibibytes file' gives bytes, not kibytes
> 
> 'ls -l --block-size=1024 file' gives the proper response
> 
> Checking back a little, I have the same problem with Coreutils-8.17.

Sounds like commit
  http://git.sv.gnu.org/cgit/coreutils.git/commit/?id=448718c1
between v8.14..v8.15.

NEWS entry:

  +  ls's -k option no longer affects how ls -l outputs file sizes.
  +  It now affects only the per-directory block counts written by -l,
  +  and the sizes written by -s.  This is for compatibility with BSD
  +  and with POSIX 2008.  Because -k is no longer equivalent to
  +  --block-size=1KiB, a new long option --kibibyte stands for -k.
  +  [bug introduced in coreutils-4.5.4]

Have a nice day,
Berny

Message #11 received at 15308 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Bruce Dubbs <bruce.dubbs <at> gmail.com>
To: Bernhard Voelker <mail <at> bernhard-voelker.de>
Cc: 15308 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#15308: ls -lk reports bytes, not kibytes
Date: Sun, 08 Sep 2013 12:10:30 -0500

Bernhard Voelker wrote:
> On 09/08/2013 06:15 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>> Coreutils 8.21
>>
>> 'ls -lk file'            gives bytes, not kibytes
>> 'ls -l --kibibytes file' gives bytes, not kibytes
>>
>> 'ls -l --block-size=1024 file' gives the proper response
>>
>> Checking back a little, I have the same problem with Coreutils-8.17.
>
> Sounds like commit
>    http://git.sv.gnu.org/cgit/coreutils.git/commit/?id=448718c1
> between v8.14..v8.15.
>
> NEWS entry:
>
>    +  ls's -k option no longer affects how ls -l outputs file sizes.
>    +  It now affects only the per-directory block counts written by -l,
>    +  and the sizes written by -s.  This is for compatibility with BSD
>    +  and with POSIX 2008.  Because -k is no longer equivalent to
>    +  --block-size=1KiB, a new long option --kibibyte stands for -k.
>    +  [bug introduced in coreutils-4.5.4]

I'm not sure what you are saying.  Is 'ls -lk' valid or not?  If not, I 
think the man page needs to be clarified:

        -k, --kibibytes
              use 1024-byte blocks

From the above, I don't know what 'per-directory block counts' means.

'ls -lks file'  produces bytes, so the above is not correct for that either.

  -- Bruce

Message #14 received at 15308 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Paul Eggert <eggert <at> cs.ucla.edu>
To: Bruce Dubbs <bruce.dubbs <at> gmail.com>
Cc: 15308 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#15308: ls -lk reports bytes, not kibytes
Date: Sun, 08 Sep 2013 11:32:58 -0700

Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> I'm not sure what you are saying.  Is 'ls -lk' valid or not?

Yes, it's valid.

> I don't know what 'per-directory block counts' means.

It's what's in the first line of output of "ls -l".

$ ls -l
total 5936
...

> 'ls -lks file'  produces bytes

It produces block counts in column 1, bytes in column 6.
'-k' affects the former, not the latter.  -k is the default
unless your environment has special settings, so normally
specifying -k won't change the output.

Message #17 received at 15308 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Bruce Dubbs <bruce.dubbs <at> gmail.com>
To: Paul Eggert <eggert <at> cs.ucla.edu>
Cc: 15308 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#15308: ls -lk reports bytes, not kibytes
Date: Sun, 08 Sep 2013 13:43:33 -0500

Paul Eggert wrote:
> Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>> I'm not sure what you are saying.  Is 'ls -lk' valid or not?
>
> Yes, it's valid.
>
>> I don't know what 'per-directory block counts' means.
>
> It's what's in the first line of output of "ls -l".
>
> $ ls -l
> total 5936
> ...
>
>> 'ls -lks file'  produces bytes
>
> It produces block counts in column 1, bytes in column 6.
> '-k' affects the former, not the latter.  -k is the default
> unless your environment has special settings, so normally
> specifying -k won't change the output.

OK, thanks Paul.  I still think the man page could use some clarification.

  -- Bruce

Previous Next

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