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]