Subject: Re: Humanization of ls(1)
To: Greywolf <email@example.com>
From: David P. Reese Jr. <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 12/29/2003 18:00:31
On Mon, Dec 29, 2003 at 11:43:04AM -0800, Greywolf wrote:
> Thus spake David P. Reese Jr. ("DPRJ> ") sometime Yesterday...
> DPRJ> SUSv3 says that '-s' is non portable and may be removed from the
> DPRJ> standard in the future. I'm not very excited about reading file
> DPRJ> sizes in gigablocks.
> Oh, lovely. You mean a dependency on $BLOCKSIZE wouldn't be portable?
> Why don't they just make it so? ls -s is *really* useful on occasion.
> I'd be upset if it vanished. Who could I bother about this in the
> standards group(s)?
I'm not too sure who you could bother about this. They do give a rationale
that kind of makes sense.
I'm not too sure how much I can talk about SUSv3 and not break the terms
and conditions. Could anyone explain to me the scope of the 're-use'
restriction in term 2? Implementation in an OS and discussion on this list
is ok... right? They just don't want me selling anything?
David P. Reese, Jr. daver at gomerbud.com