|
From: | Paul Eggert |
Subject: | bug#14525: ls -k produced no size, ls -lk lists in bytes? What's up w/k? |
Date: | Sat, 01 Jun 2013 14:35:24 -0700 |
User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130510 Thunderbird/17.0.6 |
On 06/01/2013 09:20 AM, Linda A. Walsh wrote: > What replaced it? > > I mean it doesn't do something *different*, it just ignores it. I'm not sure what behavior you're asking for, but if you want the old behavior of -k, you can use the --block-size=1KiB option. So no functionality was lost. -k (and --block-size=1KiB) affects only the block size of displayed values; it doesn't affect the choice of which values to display.
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |