Subject: bug#27127: Failure in "ls -t" when parameter list is long

From: Teppo Mäenpää <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 07:20:02 +0300

On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 01:46:04AM +0100, Pádraig Brady wrote:

>> The command "ls -t" fails to sort files as promised, when the total length of
>> the names of the files to be listed (and sorted) exceeds 128 KB. All files
>> are still listed, just the sorting part stops working.
>
>128K is the defafult max arg size for xargs,

Thank you for your quick reply.

You are right, that was the cause of the problem.

>they have the --files0-from option to take input
...
>Now this option might be added to ls,

That would be wonderful.

>For example I've done this sort of ordering in the past
>with the `find | sort | xargs ls` pattern, which you can see in:
>http://www.pixelbeat.org/scripts/newest

Having the find-command print the timestamp is a great idea, which did not 
cross my mind. Thanks!

======

Now, When I know it, I am able to find the 128KiB limitation from the man 
page of xargs. However, in my opinion, that radically changes the behavior, 
and the fact that xargs can cause multiple invocations should be mentioned in 
the "DESCRIPTION" part of xargs manpage. xargs could also emit something to 
standard error when it hits the boundary and splits the command line into 
fractions.

Ways to proceed:
0) Close this ticket as stupid user error.
1) Convert this ticket into a feature request for "ls --files0-from"
2) Convert this to documentation enhancement / stderr verbosity increase request 
for xargs

I am unsure which one of these would make most sense.

Thanks once more for the informative response!

Regards,

	Teppo