bug#14525: ls -k produced no size, ls -lk lists in bytes? What's up w/k?

[Pádraig Brady]

On 06/04/2013 08:40 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 06/02/2013 12:47 PM, Paul Eggert wrote:
>> On 06/01/2013 02:54 PM, Linda Walsh wrote:
>>> ... removing features that exceeded posix
>>
>> As I explained to you in my previous message, no features
>> were removed.  Merely the option syntax was changed.
>>
>>> What switch(es) are supposed to be used to choose what units to display
>>> sizes on the long listing?
>>
>> The --block-size option.  See:
>>
>> http://www.gnu.org/software/coreutils/manual/coreutils.html#Block-size
>>
>> Coreutils already has all the features that you asked for
>> in your email.
> 
> I just noticed that we DO have a doc bug; in 'info coreutils "Block
> size"', we incorrectly claim:
> 
>>> Block size defaults can be overridden by an explicit
>>> `--block-size=SIZE' option.  The `-k' option is equivalent to
>>> `--block-size=1K', which is the default unless the `POSIXLY_CORRECT'
>>> environment variable is set. 
> 
> which, while still true for du and df, is now false for ls.
> 

Doc update attached.

thanks,
Pádraig.

ls-k-docs.diff
Description: Text Data