GNU bug report logs -
#17546
Problem with du
Previous Next
Reported by: worley <at> alum.mit.edu (Dale R. Worley)
Date: Thu, 22 May 2014 00:18:02 UTC
Severity: normal
Tags: notabug
Merged with 21926
Done: Assaf Gordon <assafgordon <at> gmail.com>
Bug is archived. No further changes may be made.
Full log
View this message in rfc822 format
Dale R. Worley wrote:
> before release 8.6, the order of arguments didn't matter
No, order mattered even back then. For example:
$ du --version | sed 1q
du (GNU coreutils) 8.4
$ ls -li d/* e/*
11765482 -rw-r--r-- 1 eggert csfac 159910666 May 1 20:42 d/j
23558745 -rw-r--r-- 2 eggert csfac 410000000 Apr 22 21:34 d/k
23558745 -rw-r--r-- 2 eggert csfac 410000000 Apr 22 21:34 e/k
$ du d e d e
557664 d
4 e
156480 d
4 e
$ du e d e d
401188 e
156480 d
4 e
156480 d
So file argument order affected link counts even back then; it's just
that before 8.6 this was true only for files with link count greater
than 1, which led to odd behaviors such as the behavior shown above.
What changed in 8.6 is that the behavior was made consistent for all
files, not just those with link count greater than 1. so that for the
same data the current version of du generates output like this:
$ du --version | sed 1q
du (GNU coreutils) 8.22
$ du d e d e
557664 d
4 e
$ du e d e d
401188 e
156480 d
This sums to the same values independent of file order, which is a plus.
As far as I can see, POSIX doesn't allow the old behavior, but does
allow the new one.
> This leads to startlingly odd behaviors
Any choice of behavior for 'du' will lead to odd behaviors sometimes,
and there's no way we can make everybody happy in all cases. There is
an important technical advantage of du's current behavior, though; you
can get the behavior you prefer by running "du X; du Y". If we chaned
du to reset itself between command-line arguments, there'd be no way to
get the behavior I prefer, which is to count files just once.
This bug report was last modified 6 years and 214 days ago.
Previous Next
GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham,
1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd,
1994-97 Ian Jackson.