On Sat, Mar 05, 2011 at 03:21:00PM +0100, Pascal Stumpf wrote: > ls(1) still has the old semantics for -g in one spot. > > Index: ls.1 > =================================================================== > RCS file: /cvs/src/bin/ls/ls.1,v > retrieving revision 1.63 > diff -u -r1.63 ls.1 > --- ls.1 4 Mar 2011 21:03:19 -0000 1.63 > +++ ls.1 5 Mar 2011 14:17:15 -0000 > @@ -275,9 +275,9 @@ > is displayed for each file: > mode, > number of links, > -owner, > -group (though not for > +owner (though not for > .Fl g ) , > +group, > size in bytes, > time of last modification > .Pq Dq mmm dd HH:MM , >
fixed, thanks. but i'm confused - if originally -g requested group info "be included", why did the man page say (of group info) "though not for -g"? should that passage read "excluded" instead? anyone know? > > PS: Would a patch for POSIX compliance of -o be appreciated or is > backward compatibility a higher priority? > i imagine we wouldn;t want to change that, but i don;t honestly know. jmc
