Showing major/minor-numbers is an interesting idea (show what ls -l
would have shown).
This sounds a bit too much like creeping featurism. How about if we
just add a more-general argument that lets you specify the desired
output fields, as a format string? That's in the TODO list. It would
Joakim Rosqvist (JRO.SE) [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I would like to see a new option to ls that works like --size (showing
filenames and sizes in as many columns as will fit onscreen), but shows
filesize instead of disk usage.
Isn't this need fairly specialized? Couldn't you
It seems the only way to display the actual filesize (as opposed
to disk usage) with ls is to use the long listing format (-l), but then
the output will show only one file per line.
I would like to see a new option to ls that works like --size (showing
filenames and sizes in as many columns as
Hi,
(I have submitted this before, but do not see my mail in the
gnu-coreutils archives so I try again)
This is a patch that adds the --apparent-size option found in du
to the ls command. It works like --size but prints the file size
instead of the disk usage. Of course, the file size can be
