Subject: Re: bug#15828: behavior of ls -f

From: Paul Eggert <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2013 12:02:02 -0800

On 11/07/2013 11:57 AM, Pádraig Brady wrote:
> I don't see a need for -f to ignore any -l

One could argue that -f should disable -l
if _POSIX2_VERSION is 200112 or earlier,
I'm not sure it's worth the hassle to
implement that, though.