severity 116358 minor
found 116358 5.93-5
stop
The man page change suggested in the message quoted below still seems
like a good idea.
From: Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Michael Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Bug#116358: ls: --block-size needs a better description
Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 03:54:09 -0500
On Fri, Nov 30, 2001 at 06:27:11AM -0500, Michael Stone wrote:
> No, it doesn't. It looks at the number of blocks the file uses. (This is
> *not* related to size.) Then it converts that number based on the factor
> you asked it to use. I'm not going to add anything like your suggestion to
> the description of --block-size, because --block-size doesn't do
> *anything* on its own. That option is only a conversion factor used by
> other options.
Yes, that is exactly what it does, and the description is completely
unhelpful:
--block-size=SIZE
use SIZE-byte blocks
Since it is calculating the number of blocks that the file uses, that
calculation should intuitively be adjusted by telling it to "use" a
different block size. But it isn't; this parameter only affects display,
and not the calculation, and I think that should be clarified. How about
this:
--block-size=SIZE
when displaying figures in units of disk blocks, convert to
units of blocks of SIZE bytes, rather than the actual block
size of the filesystem.
--
Thomas
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
