Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 09:19:20 +0200 From: Sheldon Hearn <sheldonh@uunet.co.za> To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: ls(1) options affecting -l long format Message-ID: <45946.935392760@axl.noc.iafrica.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi folks, Chris Costello recently committed (and then backed out at my request) a change to ls(1) that made -n (numeric ID's instead of names) imply -l (long format). The OpenGroup Single UNIX Specification is quite clear on the following issue: -g, -n and -o all imply -l. Of course, the OpenGroup spec uses -g for something we don't offer. Our -g is a backward compatibility option. So my point here relates to -n and -o. As I mentioned on the PR associated with the addition of the -n option, taking it to imply -l does nothing but reduce user-interface flexibility. It prevents me from using this in my .profile alias ls='ls -n' to mean "When I ask for a long listing, show numeric ID's instead of names. If I don't ask for a long listing, don't give me one." As far as I'm concerned, we should _not_ be following the OpenGroup spec's mandate on this issue. I think that -o and -n should continue to operate as they do in FreeBSD's and NetBSD's ls, to allow the kind of flexibility suggested above. Ideally, the OpenGroup spec should change. :-) So what's my question? How hard should we be trying to stick to the OpenGroup spec? Whatever we decide should apply to both -n and -o. Ciao, Sheldon. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?45946.935392760>