GNU bug report logs - #49716
no -print0 for ls?

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: Paul Eggert <eggert <at> cs.ucla.edu>
To: Pádraig Brady <P <at> draigBrady.com>
Cc: Vito Caputo <vcaputo <at> pengaru.com>, 49716 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: bug#49716: no -print0 for ls?
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2021 01:05:50 -0700

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On 7/25/21 10:10 AM, Pádraig Brady wrote:
> Right we should be especially careful of short options with ls.
> A long only option should suffice

OK, I installed the attached to implement 'ls --null'. (The last patch 
is the actual change; the other patches are cleanups.) This addresses 
the problem raised in the bug report.

Is there any pattern as to why some coreutils programs have a --null 
option and others have a --zero option? The two options seem to mean the 
same thing. Should we work toward standardizing on one spelling or the 
other (of course maintaining backward compatibility).

[0001-env-fix-usage-typo.patch (text/x-patch, attachment)]

[0002-maint-fix-white-space.patch (text/x-patch, attachment)]

[0003-build-update-gnulib-submodule-to-latest.patch (text/x-patch, attachment)]

[0004-ls-simplify-sprintf-usage.patch (text/x-patch, attachment)]

[0005-ls-demacroize.patch (text/x-patch, attachment)]

[0006-ls-port-to-wider-off_t-uid_t-gid_t.patch (text/x-patch, attachment)]

[0007-ls-add-null-option-Bug-49716.patch (text/x-patch, attachment)]

Previous Next

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