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:
Also, what would ls show for files that are neither regular files nor
symlinks? E.g., what size would it show for character devices?
For now, it will be a zero (which is what ls -s also shows), as that is
what the size field of the inode
On Mon, Jan 24, 2005 at 04:00:33PM -0800, Paul Eggert wrote:
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 solve your problem, no?
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
On Sat, Jan 22, 2005 at 12:50:20PM +0100, Joakim Rosqvist (JRO.SE) wrote:
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.
I have no opinion on this aspect.
I
