Hello all, > On Jan 10, 2016, at 17:43, James Youngman <j...@gnu.org> wrote: > > On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 7:23 PM, Bernhard Voelker > <m...@bernhard-voelker.de> wrote: >> On 01/09/2016 04:41 PM, James Youngman wrote: >>> Let's re-open the discussion about what to call the "sane" alternative to >>> -size, and implement it this time. [...] > > Suppose someone wants to find files smaller than 20MiB. Are you sure > that the best answer we should give them is that they should use > "find -size -20971520c"?
Some what similar, how about the following heretical patch (attached). With this patch, when using "-size" with K/M/G suffixes *and* greater-than/less-than option behave as if the block-size is 1 and the user entered the explicit byte value? It is not backwards-incompatble, but more closely resembles what users would naively expect. It also does not break the POSIX wording (if one reads it in a strict way, where the rounding-to-next-integer applies only to blocks, and not to other suffixes). With it, the "help" section should become simpler: When c/k/m/g suffixes and greater-than/less-than option - it behaves exactly as one would expect. Without suffix (using 'blocks') - it rounds to next integer value. The remaining option to improve/change is the "exact" option with a suffix - which can be further debated.
0001-size-avoid-block-size-rounding-with-k-m-g-suffixes-t.patch
Description: Binary data
(note: this is not well tested, just an quick poc). What do you think? regards, - assaf
